'The reasons for comparatively fewer students choosing to read for technological qualifications in this country than in the
'A grant to the University of £2,500 from the Capitol Radio Engineering Institute of Washington, DC, through their International Division CREI (
'Commenting on the grant, Mr A.F.R.Cotton, managing director for International Operations for CREI said: "There is a feeling that some of the best brains in the country are being kept out of technology by the academic nature of grammar school curricula".'
Cotton added: '"This, and the tendency to regard technological studies as being more suitable for less able pupils, could cripple Britain in the world race for highly qualified technologists by closing the doors in this field to the most talented young men in the country".'
I'm really surprised that no-one has commented on this yet. There are so many issues here I don't know where to begin. But here's my root cause analysis. When I was a kid I spent my time either trying to build things (tree-houses, go-karts, airfix kits) and then, as I got older, to dismantle things (most notably my dad's hi-fi). I believe most engineers start off with a mechanical inquisitiveness that then evolves - at 16 I wanted to be a civil engineer, before some insightful career advice steered me to "silicone chips". What's lacking today in the UK is a distinct lack of kids with that mechanical interest and that is then compounded by no real channels to develop those that do. I can't put my finger on any one reason why the UK is comparatively worse off but the usual suspects of 2-3 generations of poor parenting & several decades of poor government policy probably account for most damage.
Grumpy, I gather it's just as bad in the USA, but they have those green card thingies to bring in the engineers they need from abroad.
The reason less students take technological subjects is likely earnings in the real world.
Why bother studying the difficult engineering course when you can earn more money as a middle manager in the NHS for example with a degree in a much simpler subject with less lectures per week? Even worse are scientists salaries.
I have seen a quote from a director of large technological company in EW moaning they cant get electronics engineers whilst advertising jobs in the same issue with a large range of experience required with a salary of £30k! And right at the side is a sales job with the same company for £50k!
As for "the tendency to regard technological studies as being more suitable for less able pupils" - what do the supposedly more able pupils study? In my experience the brightest overall people are engineers.
As a culture we need to start valuing our engineers and scientists again. These are the people that have made our country what it is today. Instead we value people that have no discernable talent like Big Brother participants.
David I couldn't agree with you more, but this debate has been going on in the UK, to my personal knowledge, for 30 years at least. I've always assumed that engineers are underpaid because they undervalue themselves, because their training encourages them to take a vocational view of their work, because they are often quite naive when it comes to dealing with the outside world and particularly when dealing with wily, Scroogey, managers, and because the industry seems to conspire to keep them underpaid. Maybe if more engineers started and ran companies like barristers, solicitors, accountants, medical consultants, architects and other professionals do, then there'd be a better appreciation of the appropriate level of pay for engineers.
The main reason I've found for low salaries is justification. If you, as an engineer, cannot produce £60,000 of revenue a year, then you cannot expect to get more than £30,000 in wages. This particular "truism" means companies feel they cannot waste money employing expensive engineers, however good they might be.
The same rationale happens with test equipment; some of the stuff I've seen big companies using is too old for the science museum, but they cannot justify buying anything new.
One day, perhaps, it will occur to the employers that this may not be the best way of costing engineers and equipment, but as you say, David, nothing has changed in many decades, so I'm not holding my breath.
perhaps it's time to do a blog on Monty Finiston ? it must be close to 30yrs now since his report was published.
Spot on Grumpy, it's exactly 30 years. Yes indeed, Monty Finniston tried to solve it. The Engineering Council was one thing which came out of his report. Clearly though he didn't find the answer, or we wouldn't be getting the same complaints 30 years later.
Until you can convince the media to stop referring to locksmiths, plumbers, electricians, motor mechanics, linesmen, tracklayers, etc. as engineers, (only in the UK by the way) we are on a losing wicket. How the media can call a strike "industrial action" also beggars belief.
Peter, I think the practice of calling all those people 'engineers' has also gone on for over 30 years. Maybe Monty Finniston missed a trick in not coming up with a new generic term for professional engineers. If there is to be one, I think it will have to be the profession, rather the media, which comes up with it. Incidentally it's exactly the same in the USA. I remember being in a hotel room with an EE when the TV conked, he rang the reception who said 'I'll send up an engineer'. The EE started replying "Well I'm an engineer . . . ." then trailed off realising the futility of that approach.
Peter, I think the practice of calling all those people 'engineers' has also gone on for over 30 years. Maybe Monty Finniston missed a trick in not coming up with a new generic term for professional engineers. If there is to be one, I think it will have to be the profession, rather the media, which comes up with it. Incidentally it's exactly the same in the USA. I remember being in a hotel room with an EE when the TV conked, he rang the reception who said 'I'll send up an engineer'. The EE started replying "Well I'm an engineer . . . ." then trailed off realising the futility of that approach.
I don't buy either the naming thing or the salary thing. Neither meant anything to me when I decided to become an engineer. And I don't think I know of anyone who chose a different career path because of the low pay and/or low esteem attached to being an engineer. For me it goes much deeper: fewer people WANT to be engineers - ie, to do the practical stuff based on an ability & desire to understand some of the maths behind it. I can recall watching & smelling a valve radio, taking the back off and wondering how it worked. You can't really do that with an iPod.
I'm with Grumpy.
The naming thing is a bit of an excuse: for the last ten years no-one was deterred from doing an MBA working at Goldman Sachs because they shared 'banker' with the 17 year old clerk at NatWest. (Sadsly perhaps). The guy selling A380s doesn't feel insecure because 'sales' mixes him up with the Fuller Brush man. If the job is interesting and well paid people will apply regardless of name.
Indeeed, I think the salary think is a red-herring too. There are statistics and I think IET published something on this. Most engineers I know are pretty well paid: certainly better than most arts graduates.
David suggests looking at other professionals: we are electronics folks, but most civil engineers, structural engineers are in partnerships like architects: I'm not sure that makes any difference to the problem.
I think what matters is the motivation and opportunity to play, to experiment, to get into 'making stuff'.
Grumpy cites valves vs iPOD. I remember the weird shop off the high street where I could buy transistors to build something: that is harder. In the 80s with Acorn Atom or ZX80 you had to program, and every teenager knew BASIC - that led to all the games companies and software startups. But even if I wanted to, I don't think it is possible to actually write a program on my PC... As I kid I had a chemistry set: 'elf+safety seem to have banned those (oe at least anything fun in them!)
I for one took a different career path due to low pay in electronics. Bricklaying paid very handsomely for a while. However much I love designing electronics I have a family to look after and my family comes before me.
Whilst I understand the ROI with respect to engineers salaries, many engineers are employed in jobs where they will generate a large ROI. Many of these companies have pay-scales where the valuation of engineers is pretty low and difficult to change.
I worked for a large international company for a short while as the 'Senior Engineer' where the forklift drivers earned virtually the same as me. I left another job because they could not pay me more because of the pay scale. Electronics and software engineers were on the same pay scale as machinists!
And there I return to the respect / salary point. Most people choose careers where they will gain respect, earn a good salary and have good promotional prospects (see similar words on job adverts!). Electronics engineering certainly isnt one of them. Some people do choose vocational careers but out of everyone I know I cannot name a single person.
PS Rupester, try SmallBasic or VB.Net, all free!
You're a star, David
For a bit more clarity with course uptake versus salary, in the US anyway, see http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/24231003
There is a 72% correlation between course uptake and salary. I'm not a journalist so I do understand the difference between a correlation and a link!
Thanks for that David, a jolly jibe