This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

A new model of high-value engineering education

Following on from the UK Engineering Report 2016 (and the discussion of same in this forum) and the adequacy or not of current efforts to educate and train, and to encourage the registration of our future engineers, I am intrigued about a “new model in technology and engineering” (NMiTE http://www.nmite.org.uk). It is a new University that is to focus on the teaching of engineering.

In a recent press release, it says:  


“At NMiTE we believe that engineering education can be different.
We’re here to unlock the creativity and drive of Britain’s next generation – the Passioneers – the designers and builders, problem solvers and innovators who will shape our future.


We’re establishing a new model of high-value engineering education:


  • Creating a beacon institution to help address the engineering skills shortage that threatens to hobble the UK’s ability to compete globally.

  • With a new approach to learning – based on real-world problem solving and the blending of high quality engineering, design, liberal arts and humanities with communication and employability skills targeted at the growth sectors of the future.

  • Located on a new and different type of campus – designed for inspiration, collaboration and a deep connection to the global community.

  • And reinforced by an innovation ecosystem of global corporations & SME entrepreneurs, coupled with global universities, not just to invest, but to contribute knowledge and expertise – with New Model students at its centre.

We’re shaping an institution to create and deliver 21st century engineers – catalysts for innovation and change – a new model generation of emotionally intelligent entrepreneurs, innovators, employees and leaders for the future."


Two things strike me as very different about this proposition:

  1. Its motto is “no lectures, no exams, no text books” (!). It plans to be very practically-based, largely conducted within real industry.

Apparently, it will also have no departments, no faculties, no tenure, no Council.  Instead, it’ll have “teaching teams designed around the delivery of our unique engineering and Human Interaction curriculum” (developed by an impressive, international, and overwhelmingly academic array of advisors and partners).


  1. It’s located in the city of Hereford (admittedly partly a personal one as a resident of Herefordshire for over 30 years). 

It is a city by virtue of its cathedral but it is one of the smaller cities in the UK with a population of just over 50k, and is in England's first or second most rural county (depending on how you rank it). Hereford’s engineering heritage is largely unremarkable as it is known more for its agricultural and food output (beef, potatoes, strawberries, apples, cider(!), beer, etc.) and of being home to the UK's elite special forces regiments. It has engineering history in munitions production from during WWII and it's current engineering association is with food production, double-glazing, Morgan chassis and JCB cab manufacture, insulation material forming, and that’s largely it. So, not the most obvious choice to base a new Advanced Engineering University then!


The NMiTE project has been described (The Times 6th Sep 2016) as “at worst an intriguing experiment and at best an innovative template that traditional universities might learn from”.

What do you think?


As an aside, I have seen nothing of NMiTE in these forums or indeed on the IET website – yet, apparently (and quite rightly) the IET has been an advisor/contributor/supporter.


As a footnote, I would very much like to reach out and connect with any IET members/fellows that are/have been involved in NMiTE with a view of my getting involved too.
  • Mark,

     

    I wasn’t aware of this until your post, but as you will realise this is an area of interest to me. I would also share a slight geographic affinity, growing up in a neighbouring county and having had occasional casual contact with that admirable Freeman of The City of Hereford Graham Turner, since 1973.  As far as the IET is concerned, I would expect that we want to encourage anything aligned with our aims, whilst taking care to guard our reputation and formal role as a body licensed by Engineering Council to Accredit Degrees. Since accreditation requires graduates, this may be some years away for NMiTE.  I’ll draw it to the attention of IET Staff responsible for Education and Training Policy, Accreditation and Academic Partnerships. Perhaps they may know something about any contact with NMiTE to date?

     

    Incidentally, I met a participant in the BEng(Hons) in Manufacturing Engineering at Wolverhampton University recently (http://courses.wlv.ac.uk/course.asp?code=MA001U31UVD) which is also “ground-breaking” in a number of respects.

     

    In my brief perusal of the NMiTE offering, it seems that they are aiming for quite conservative entry requirements  (AAB at A-Levels). Whereas the Wolverhampton BEng programme, accelerated through work-based learning, has a more flexible approach (including , minimum of BB or CDD at A-level and other options), tailored to those employed in the industries it is intended to serve. Wolverhampton is an Academic Partner of the IET and also well-known for its policy of eschewing participation in university league tables.  Perhaps NMiTE are cautious at this early stage to guard against any potential negativity from certain quarters, or may have rather different aims in mind.     

      

  • The following article may be of interest to you both...

    http://spectrum.ieee.org/view-from-the-valley/at-work/education/the-engineers-of-the-future-will-not-resemble-the-engineers-of-the-past


  • Thank you for pointing me to that article Jason, very interesting.

    (I liked the line"I used to tell students it doesn’t matter what we teach you because it will be obsolete when you graduate, so go out and have a good time.”)
  • Yes, that is an interesting article, it resonates with things I've been thinking about looking at my children's degrees: my daughter's coming to the end of an integrated Master's in biology, my son's finishing his first year of a joint honours philosophy and music. Sad to say I think they both seem to be getting a much better education for life than I did with my engineering degree. In particular, a point we were discussing over Easter was an oddity of engineering degrees: they "teach" you (and this still seems to be true) that all problems have solutions, and not just that but defined solutions*. Between the three of us we could not think of another class of degrees that does this - and, for example, it does explain why so many engineers struggle with moving into management where you're often just trying to make the least worst decision you can based on not nearly enough information! I also see this in my own field of safety engineering, it's an odd concept to many graduate engineers that the systems they are working on will end up with a probability of killing people, and that often the argument that it is acceptable safe (and what does that mean?) relies on some best guess assumptions - not least as to how likely it is that people will do stupid (or just thoughtless) things. You can't calculate everything, and if you think you can you're probably doing Garbage In Garbage Out.


    To my mind a degree should be the polar opposite of a vocational course here, it should support you in learning that the world is an uncertain, unknown, and changeable place, help you discover how to find the best knowledge that is available, and then use that to solve new problems - in some sort of structured responsible way that lets you make best guesses when you need to. Trying to give the students that available knowledge is absolutely a waste of time. Knowing how to manage evidence and arguments is far more important.


    (Micro rant here: Every so often, on these forums and elsewhere, an engineer will write "all politicians should be engineers, because engineers are taught how to think logically". Sorry, not true, philosophers and scientists (and some lawyers) are supported to learn methodologies for thinking logically - I think that's what attracted my children to those subjects - engineers are, largely, taught to do things by the book. And in the real world there ain't no book! Micro rant over smiley


    So whilst I don't agree with every word Professor Plummer is quoted as saying here, I very strongly agree with the thrust of his argument. The engineers of the future need to understand that there are no easy answers, but there are lots of fascinating opportunities to try to find the difficult answers - and we do know an awful lot about good ways to carry out that search.



    All this, I suppose, is why the concept of NMiTE just slightly bothers me - there's no reason why an engineering focused institute shouldn't provide an education which encourages deep thinking about a range of issues beyond the obviously technical, I just have this nasty feeling it won't!


    Cheers, Andy



    (*This came out of a discussion about end of year exams: we were thinking how odd it is that only engineering degrees have largely "right" and "wrong" answers, every other degree (apparently even maths, although we may be wrong) is looking at how you approach an issue, and accepts there may be several different but perfectly valid approaches.)
  • Andy Millar‍ 


    "Micro rant" laugh


    That's going to be my new phrase of the week... wink 


    Lisa
  • If I find I'm getting to the point of having a "milli-rant" then it's time for a cup of tea smiley


    Talking of which, I've just realised it's 4:00 so time for a cup of tea anyway!
  • Andy,

    I was going to disagree with your comments but on thinking about it I am not so sure.

    I have to say that my engineering degree didn't "teach me that all problems have solutions" which is where I was going to disagree. However, and in retrospect, I went into university with experience in industry and already knew that not all problems have solutions and I left having been taught a number of tools that may help to find solutions to problems. In that respect, perhaps my degree was in line with what you expect, at least for me. The issue is probably that in showing how to use the tools being taught, no-one is going to provide a problem that is insoluble so there is perhaps an implication that all problems have solutions when used with these tools for those students who don't know better.


    I think your comments are best summed up by the quotation from Richard Feynman: "I would rather have a question I can't answer than an answer I can't question!"


    Alasdair
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member in reply to Chris Pearson

    Andy Millar:

    Yes, that is an interesting article, it resonates with things I've been thinking about looking at my children's degrees: my daughter's coming to the end of an integrated Master's in biology, my son's finishing his first year of a joint honours philosophy and music. Sad to say I think they both seem to be getting a much better education for life than I did with my engineering degree. In particular, a point we were discussing over Easter was an oddity of engineering degrees: they "teach" you (and this still seems to be true) that all problems have solutions, and not just that but defined solutions*. Between the three of us we could not think of another class of degrees that does this - and, for example, it does explain why so many engineers struggle with moving into management where you're often just trying to make the least worst decision you can based on not nearly enough information! I also see this in my own field of safety engineering, it's an odd concept to many graduate engineers that the systems they are working on will end up with a probability of killing people, and that often the argument that it is acceptable safe (and what does that mean?) relies on some best guess assumptions - not least as to how likely it is that people will do stupid (or just thoughtless) things. You can't calculate everything, and if you think you can you're probably doing Garbage In Garbage Out.


    To my mind a degree should be the polar opposite of a vocational course here, it should support you in learning that the world is an uncertain, unknown, and changeable place, help you discover how to find the best knowledge that is available, and then use that to solve new problems - in some sort of structured responsible way that lets you make best guesses when you need to. Trying to give the students that available knowledge is absolutely a waste of time. Knowing how to manage evidence and arguments is far more important.


    (Micro rant here: Every so often, on these forums and elsewhere, an engineer will write "all politicians should be engineers, because engineers are taught how to think logically". Sorry, not true, philosophers and scientists (and some lawyers) are supported to learn methodologies for thinking logically - I think that's what attracted my children to those subjects - engineers are, largely, taught to do things by the book. And in the real world there ain't no book! Micro rant over smiley


    So whilst I don't agree with every word Professor Plummer is quoted as saying here, I very strongly agree with the thrust of his argument. The engineers of the future need to understand that there are no easy answers, but there are lots of fascinating opportunities to try to find the difficult answers - and we do know an awful lot about good ways to carry out that search.



    All this, I suppose, is why the concept of NMiTE just slightly bothers me - there's no reason why an engineering focused institute shouldn't provide an education which encourages deep thinking about a range of issues beyond the obviously technical, I just have this nasty feeling it won't!


    Cheers, Andy



    (*This came out of a discussion about end of year exams: we were thinking how odd it is that only engineering degrees have largely "right" and "wrong" answers, every other degree (apparently even maths, although we may be wrong) is looking at how you approach an issue, and accepts there may be several different but perfectly valid approaches.)



    Andy,


    I like your comments.

    As a founder member of ITEME I feel completely out of touch with the IET CEng community. Not because it is mainly electrical or IT, but because there is a lack of wider knowledge and comprehension of anything beyond engineering.

    I have stated before that the UK, GCE A level, and university degree is incomplete to be an innovative engineer or technologist.

    The OCDE have just stated the the Bolgnia agreement is no longer what is needed for today’s youngsters; the L M D system is not sufficient, OCDE  now say that young professionals need work experience and training ( that’s CEng ). In Europe many university graduates take two or more Master degrees and many years of temporary work before being employed in a competent post.

     

    I went to one of the three experimental, UK multilateral schools, where I was taught trades, social history, languages, science and technology. This gave me a good entrance into the Ministry of Aviation apprentice scheme.

    A quick mission with MI5 and I knew what world we were living in.

    My training and education alone gave me Tech Eng (I Eng a denigrating term which I have shed) and allowed me to work on several UK, Very Big, engineering Projects, leading to Fusion engineering where I was nominated Engineer in Charge. (My Electrical Engineer mentor was Mr Corbyn Senior!). I came across the most brilliant of foreign engineers, technologists and Scientists, I realised that our UK education was lacking. The UK engineers complained that I did not have a PhD, but I was above them.


    I took a degree in mathematics and fusion subjects, this did not teach me how to philosophise or how to make structured arguments, it just taught me how to be Cartesian and to make mathematical models that would prove my problem’s solution.

    After leaving the UK (because my name was plagiarised), I learnt economics, law, and sales by in house training. I learnt a foreign language to survive.

     

    My daughter had the golden opportunity to go to one of the three French-German high schools, coupled with the Cambridge International Baccalaureate. This school was free because we parents created it, in a normal French college. She studied science in French and literature in English and everything else in German.

    She went on to do biology, but was hyper sensitive to laboratory chemicals which nearly killed her.

    An accomplished musician, she is now studying music as an artist in Switzerland and playing all over Europe.

    She has had what I consider to be the most appropriate education. She can go to any university to study any subject. Her Class comrades are in the top universities throughout Europe and the States. She can argue, and lead thanks to her education.

     

    Her education could be given in any normal school or college. Her teachers taught in the deprived schools and in her school. It is all a question of will.

     

    We have the resources and the means to be the most efficient, but we have to fall back on tradition and communities etc. What a waste.

     

    There are colleges in the UK, Bridgwater for one ( see E&T article earlier this year) which have started apprenticeships based in their college. This is in nuclear engineering, but it applies to all disciplines. The students can enter at 16 or 18, and go on to Technician, BSc, Master, or PhD. Where there is a will, there is away.


    I have two Master equivalents; just retiring, I was responsible for the redesign of the EPR and led the decommissioning of a nuclear reactor where I had 400 nuclear scientists and engineers at my disposition. I taught a near eastern Head of Nuclear Engineering, how to dismantle his country’s nuclear installations. For a RAE craft apprentice this is not too bad.

    I have been refused CEng 5 times; so what I was educated and applied my ingenuity to be an engineer.

    I now read university degrees in the subjects I was not allowed to study in the UK, what I now learn now is amazing, I see the manipulations and underhanded dealings that are going on in the UK, Europe and the world and IET.

     

    Yes Engineers should learn the basics in social and engineering history, philosophy, law, languages, economics, marketing & sales.


    Maths, I hardly used them, it is forbidden to go outside of the engineering codes. I have a circular slide rule, which I replaced with the first pocket calculator.

    Writing engineering IT models is dangerous, this was a major fault in nuclear engineering.

     
    A new model of high-value engineering education - is needed, you do not have to go far, there are some good models available just get out of the mud and apply them.

    They do not cost any more than what we have today, but they will upset a lot of CEng stalwarts.


    let's see what happens on friday.

    John Gowman, BA MIET

  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member in reply to Chris Pearson

    Andy Millar:

    Yes, that is an interesting article, it resonates with things I've been thinking about looking at my children's degrees: my daughter's coming to the end of an integrated Master's in biology, my son's finishing his first year of a joint honours philosophy and music. Sad to say I think they both seem to be getting a much better education for life than I did with my engineering degree. In particular, a point we were discussing over Easter was an oddity of engineering degrees: they "teach" you (and this still seems to be true) that all problems have solutions, and not just that but defined solutions*. Between the three of us we could not think of another class of degrees that does this - and, for example, it does explain why so many engineers struggle with moving into management where you're often just trying to make the least worst decision you can based on not nearly enough information! I also see this in my own field of safety engineering, it's an odd concept to many graduate engineers that the systems they are working on will end up with a probability of killing people, and that often the argument that it is acceptable safe (and what does that mean?) relies on some best guess assumptions - not least as to how likely it is that people will do stupid (or just thoughtless) things. You can't calculate everything, and if you think you can you're probably doing Garbage In Garbage Out.


    To my mind a degree should be the polar opposite of a vocational course here, it should support you in learning that the world is an uncertain, unknown, and changeable place, help you discover how to find the best knowledge that is available, and then use that to solve new problems - in some sort of structured responsible way that lets you make best guesses when you need to. Trying to give the students that available knowledge is absolutely a waste of time. Knowing how to manage evidence and arguments is far more important.


    (Micro rant here: Every so often, on these forums and elsewhere, an engineer will write "all politicians should be engineers, because engineers are taught how to think logically". Sorry, not true, philosophers and scientists (and some lawyers) are supported to learn methodologies for thinking logically - I think that's what attracted my children to those subjects - engineers are, largely, taught to do things by the book. And in the real world there ain't no book! Micro rant over smiley


    So whilst I don't agree with every word Professor Plummer is quoted as saying here, I very strongly agree with the thrust of his argument. The engineers of the future need to understand that there are no easy answers, but there are lots of fascinating opportunities to try to find the difficult answers - and we do know an awful lot about good ways to carry out that search.



    All this, I suppose, is why the concept of NMiTE just slightly bothers me - there's no reason why an engineering focused institute shouldn't provide an education which encourages deep thinking about a range of issues beyond the obviously technical, I just have this nasty feeling it won't!


    Cheers, Andy



    (*This came out of a discussion about end of year exams: we were thinking how odd it is that only engineering degrees have largely "right" and "wrong" answers, every other degree (apparently even maths, although we may be wrong) is looking at how you approach an issue, and accepts there may be several different but perfectly valid approaches.)



    Andy,


    I like your comments.

    As a founder member of ITEME I feel completely out of touch with the IET CEng community. Not because it is mainly electrical or IT, but because there is a lack of wider knowledge and comprehension of anything beyond engineering.

    I have stated before that the UK, GCE A level, and university degree is incomplete to be an innovative engineer or technologist.

    The OCDE have just stated the the Bolgnia agreement is no longer what is needed for today’s youngsters; the L M D system is not sufficient, OCDE  now say that young professionals need work experience and training ( that’s CEng ). In Europe many university graduates take two or more Master degrees and many years of temporary work before being employed in a competent post.

     

    I went to one of the three experimental, UK multilateral schools, where I was taught trades, social history, languages, science and technology. This gave me a good entrance into the Ministry of Aviation apprentice scheme.

    A quick mission with MI5 and I knew what world we were living in.

    My training and education alone gave me Tech Eng (I Eng a denigrating term which I have shed) and allowed me to work on several UK, Very Big, engineering Projects, leading to Fusion engineering where I was nominated Engineer in Charge. (My Electrical Engineer mentor was Mr Corbyn Senior!). I came across the most brilliant of foreign engineers, technologists and Scientists, I realised that our UK education was lacking. The UK engineers complained that I did not have a PhD, but I was above them.


    I took a degree in mathematics and fusion subjects, this did not teach me how to philosophise or how to make structured arguments, it just taught me how to be Cartesian and to make mathematical models that would prove my problem’s solution.

    After leaving the UK (because my name was plagiarised), I learnt economics, law, and sales by in house training. I learnt a foreign language to survive.

     

    My daughter had the golden opportunity to go to one of the three French-German high schools, coupled with the Cambridge International Baccalaureate. This school was free because we parents created it, in a normal French college. She studied science in French and literature in English and everything else in German.

    She went on to do biology, but was hyper sensitive to laboratory chemicals which nearly killed her.

    An accomplished musician, she is now studying music as an artist in Switzerland and playing all over Europe.

    She has had what I consider to be the most appropriate education. She can go to any university to study any subject. Her Class comrades are in the top universities throughout Europe and the States. She can argue, and lead thanks to her education.

     

    Her education could be given in any normal school or college. Her teachers taught in the deprived schools and in her school. It is all a question of will.

     

    We have the resources and the means to be the most efficient, but we have to fall back on tradition and communities etc. What a waste.

     

    There are colleges in the UK, Bridgwater for one ( see E&T article earlier this year) which have started apprenticeships based in their college. This is in nuclear engineering, but it applies to all disciplines. The students can enter at 16 or 18, and go on to Technician, BSc, Master, or PhD. Where there is a will, there is away.


    I have two Master equivalents; just retiring, I was responsible for the redesign of the EPR and led the decommissioning of a nuclear reactor where I had 400 nuclear scientists and engineers at my disposition. I taught a near eastern Head of Nuclear Engineering, how to dismantle his country’s nuclear installations. For a RAE craft apprentice this is not too bad.

    I have been refused CEng 5 times; so what I was educated and applied my ingenuity to be an engineer.

    I now read university degrees in the subjects I was not allowed to study in the UK, what I now learn now is amazing, I see the manipulations and underhanded dealings that are going on in the UK, Europe and the world and IET.

     

    Yes Engineers should learn the basics in social and engineering history, philosophy, law, languages, economics, marketing & sales.


    Maths, I hardly used them, it is forbidden to go outside of the engineering codes. I have a circular slide rule, which I replaced with the first pocket calculator.

    Writing engineering IT models is dangerous, this was a major fault in nuclear engineering.

     
    A new model of high-value engineering education - is needed, you do not have to go far, there are some good models available just get out of the mud and apply them.

    They do not cost any more than what we have today, but they will upset a lot of CEng stalwarts.


    let's see what happens on friday.

    John Gowman, BA MIET

  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member in reply to Chris Pearson

    Andy Millar:

    Yes, that is an interesting article, it resonates with things I've been thinking about looking at my children's degrees: my daughter's coming to the end of an integrated Master's in biology, my son's finishing his first year of a joint honours philosophy and music. Sad to say I think they both seem to be getting a much better education for life than I did with my engineering degree. In particular, a point we were discussing over Easter was an oddity of engineering degrees: they "teach" you (and this still seems to be true) that all problems have solutions, and not just that but defined solutions*. Between the three of us we could not think of another class of degrees that does this - and, for example, it does explain why so many engineers struggle with moving into management where you're often just trying to make the least worst decision you can based on not nearly enough information! I also see this in my own field of safety engineering, it's an odd concept to many graduate engineers that the systems they are working on will end up with a probability of killing people, and that often the argument that it is acceptable safe (and what does that mean?) relies on some best guess assumptions - not least as to how likely it is that people will do stupid (or just thoughtless) things. You can't calculate everything, and if you think you can you're probably doing Garbage In Garbage Out.


    To my mind a degree should be the polar opposite of a vocational course here, it should support you in learning that the world is an uncertain, unknown, and changeable place, help you discover how to find the best knowledge that is available, and then use that to solve new problems - in some sort of structured responsible way that lets you make best guesses when you need to. Trying to give the students that available knowledge is absolutely a waste of time. Knowing how to manage evidence and arguments is far more important.


    (Micro rant here: Every so often, on these forums and elsewhere, an engineer will write "all politicians should be engineers, because engineers are taught how to think logically". Sorry, not true, philosophers and scientists (and some lawyers) are supported to learn methodologies for thinking logically - I think that's what attracted my children to those subjects - engineers are, largely, taught to do things by the book. And in the real world there ain't no book! Micro rant over smiley


    So whilst I don't agree with every word Professor Plummer is quoted as saying here, I very strongly agree with the thrust of his argument. The engineers of the future need to understand that there are no easy answers, but there are lots of fascinating opportunities to try to find the difficult answers - and we do know an awful lot about good ways to carry out that search.



    All this, I suppose, is why the concept of NMiTE just slightly bothers me - there's no reason why an engineering focused institute shouldn't provide an education which encourages deep thinking about a range of issues beyond the obviously technical, I just have this nasty feeling it won't!


    Cheers, Andy



    (*This came out of a discussion about end of year exams: we were thinking how odd it is that only engineering degrees have largely "right" and "wrong" answers, every other degree (apparently even maths, although we may be wrong) is looking at how you approach an issue, and accepts there may be several different but perfectly valid approaches.)



    Andy,


    I like your comments.

    As a founder member of ITEME I feel completely out of touch with the IET CEng community. Not because it is mainly electrical or IT, but because there is a lack of wider knowledge and comprehension of anything beyond engineering.

    I have stated before that the UK, GCE A level, and university degree is incomplete to be an innovative engineer or technologist.

    The OCDE have just stated the the Bolgnia agreement is no longer what is needed for today’s youngsters; the L M D system is not sufficient, OCDE  now say that young professionals need work experience and training ( that’s CEng ). In Europe many university graduates take two or more Master degrees and many years of temporary work before being employed in a competent post.

     

    I went to one of the three experimental, UK multilateral schools, where I was taught trades, social history, languages, science and technology. This gave me a good entrance into the Ministry of Aviation apprentice scheme.

    A quick mission with MI5 and I knew what world we were living in.

    My training and education alone gave me Tech Eng (I Eng a denigrating term which I have shed) and allowed me to work on several UK, Very Big, engineering Projects, leading to Fusion engineering where I was nominated Engineer in Charge. (My Electrical Engineer mentor was Mr Corbyn Senior!). I came across the most brilliant of foreign engineers, technologists and Scientists, I realised that our UK education was lacking. The UK engineers complained that I did not have a PhD, but I was above them.


    I took a degree in mathematics and fusion subjects, this did not teach me how to philosophise or how to make structured arguments, it just taught me how to be Cartesian and to make mathematical models that would prove my problem’s solution.

    After leaving the UK (because my name was plagiarised), I learnt economics, law, and sales by in house training. I learnt a foreign language to survive.

     

    My daughter had the golden opportunity to go to one of the three French-German high schools, coupled with the Cambridge International Baccalaureate. This school was free because we parents created it, in a normal French college. She studied science in French and literature in English and everything else in German.

    She went on to do biology, but was hyper sensitive to laboratory chemicals which nearly killed her.

    An accomplished musician, she is now studying music as an artist in Switzerland and playing all over Europe.

    She has had what I consider to be the most appropriate education. She can go to any university to study any subject. Her Class comrades are in the top universities throughout Europe and the States. She can argue, and lead thanks to her education.

     

    Her education could be given in any normal school or college. Her teachers taught in the deprived schools and in her school. It is all a question of will.

     

    We have the resources and the means to be the most efficient, but we have to fall back on tradition and communities etc. What a waste.

     

    There are colleges in the UK, Bridgwater for one ( see E&T article earlier this year) which have started apprenticeships based in their college. This is in nuclear engineering, but it applies to all disciplines. The students can enter at 16 or 18, and go on to Technician, BSc, Master, or PhD. Where there is a will, there is away.


    I have two Master equivalents; just retiring, I was responsible for the redesign of the EPR and led the decommissioning of a nuclear reactor where I had 400 nuclear scientists and engineers at my disposition. I taught a near eastern Head of Nuclear Engineering, how to dismantle his country’s nuclear installations. For a RAE craft apprentice this is not too bad.

    I have been refused CEng 5 times; so what I was educated and applied my ingenuity to be an engineer.

    I now read university degrees in the subjects I was not allowed to study in the UK, what I now learn now is amazing, I see the manipulations and underhanded dealings that are going on in the UK, Europe and the world and IET.

     

    Yes Engineers should learn the basics in social and engineering history, philosophy, law, languages, economics, marketing & sales.


    Maths, I hardly used them, it is forbidden to go outside of the engineering codes. I have a circular slide rule, which I replaced with the first pocket calculator.

    Writing engineering IT models is dangerous, this was a major fault in nuclear engineering.

     
    A new model of high-value engineering education - is needed, you do not have to go far, there are some good models available just get out of the mud and apply them.

    They do not cost any more than what we have today, but they will upset a lot of CEng stalwarts.


    let's see what happens on friday.

    John Gowman, BA MIET