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

Engineers who did not enjoy school - are they rare?

This might come across as a very strange question but is it uncommon to find engineers who did not enjoy school or think highly of the schools that they attended? I have encountered numerous computing and IT types over the years who did not enjoy school or had bad experiences at school but very few electrical or mechanical engineers.
  • I'm not an Engineer Arran,  but I loved being at School! smiley Actually I think what I loved (and still love) is learning rather than school itself perhaps?


    I'm most happiest when I'm learning something new and are given the opportunity to use that learning too (nothing worse than learning something then never using it... ahem... 'algebra' wink)


    I'm currently doing an Adobe Photoshop Intermediate course at college, (having already done the Beginners classes), and thankfully get to use my new skills both in my day job with the IET and my extra curricular activities too. 


    I think maybe many IT professionals didn't get on with schooling perhaps because, back then, IT was something new so they've had to learn a lot more outside of school than they learnt at school? Maybe that influences their recollection of what school was like for them?


    In fact one of the most stupidest things I've ever said was to my Computer Science teacher back when I was doing my 'O' levels when I had to decide whether or not to do Computer Science as an option or to continue with Chemistry. I said to him that I doubt if I would ever use a computer in my life.... blush Ohhhh how wrong could I be!

  • Lisa Miles:


    Actually I think what I loved (and still love) is learning rather than school itself perhaps?




    Bear in mind that learning and school are two completely different things. It's possible to love learning but hate school for any one (or more) of 1001 different reasons.




    I think maybe many IT professionals didn't get on with schooling perhaps because, back then, IT was something new so they've had to learn a lot more outside of school than they learnt at school? Maybe that influences their recollection of what school was like for them?




    A theory I have is that a sizeable proportion of IT types did badly at school academically but succeeded in IT because the knowledge required for a career in IT is not based on a traditional school curriculum. However it is possible to achieve high when it comes to academics but hate school and fall down badly when it comes to academics and love school.



  • Arran Cameron:



    A theory I have is that a sizeable proportion of IT types did badly at school academically but succeeded in IT because the knowledge required for a career in IT is not based on a traditional school curriculum. However it is possible to achieve high when it comes to academics but hate school and fall down badly when it comes to academics and love school.



     




    I know what you mean Arran Cameron‍! My youngest Brother didn't do that well at 'School', always had an obsessive interest in computers though and is now an IT professional earning over twice as much as I do!  blush

  • I think liking school is a blend of social qualities and an aptitude for study, which I view as a skill in itself. I've known many good engineers who are poor students and vice versa. Obviously the specific qualities of the school, teachers and contemporaries has a bearing too, not forgetting parents input into the blend.
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    I have a theory that lots of highly intelligent kids don't enjoy school because it's too slow and restrictive, and frustrates them. The environment doesn't work for everyone and I don't know that all schools recognise this. 


    From a personal perspective, I was quite good academically but got super bored by the time sixth form came around. I only really made something of my life after a bit of time out and then excelling in college and university when I was a bit more mature...


    Alex is right in that school is as much as about social skills and an aptitude for study.
  • David, I think it is more complicated. It is not only dependent on the individual, but also the school, teachers, etc. as Alex points out. My wife is very intelligent (probably much more than me, though our aptitudes are different), but was at a comprehensive school where the teachers were not particularly brilliant and the pupils in general didn't want to learn, making it hard for my wife who did, so she didn't enjoy the experience.

    I, on the other hand, was educated for the most part in Scotland where education has always been valued and as I also made it into the local grammar school where I was surrounded by others who were highly intelligent with good teachers (though with a few exceptions), so I look back on my school days as a time I enjoyed.

    I think that if there is a gifted teacher who can enthuse the pupils, they will always enjoy the experience regardless of the school (in film, think of Robin Williams in 'Dead Poet's Society' or Richard Griffiths in 'The History Boys').

    Alasdair
  • I think it's always very hard to generalise about "engineers" - we are a very, very diverse bunch.


    But that said, there may be a positive three-way correlation between those who lack social skills and who a) don't enjoy school because of it and b) retreat into a non-social activity such as engineering. Which is unfortunate as engineering benefits hugely from engineers with good social skills!


    Personally I thoroughly enjoyed school up to the age of 11, which actually in hindsight was when I developed my underlying engineering attitudes of enquiry and experimentation. I did not enjoy it after that having been wrongly streamed - I really enjoyed academic work but was put in the totally anti-academic group*. (Off topic, this is why I am determinedly against grammar schools, it was bad enough for me being wrongly labelled in a comprehensive at that age, at least I was able to move a bit.) Now, it is very possible that if I had been in a more academic peer group that I would have gone in a different direction, law perhaps, or psychology. We'll never know!


    One of the best pairing of two engineers I ever had the privilege to manage was an engineer who had left school straight after GCSEs because he hated it (that said, we later sponsored him through uni where he strolled out with a first) and a very dedicated Chinese academic who absolutely loved studying. So I wouldn't like to generalise at all. But it's still an interesting and, I think, important subject - thanks Arran for raising this. 


    Cheers,


    Andy


    * Anyone who went to a rough North London school in the 1970s will know exactly what I mean by "anti-academic"...
  • P.S. (Just seen Alasdair's post that crossed with mine) absolutely, an inspiring teacher who believes in you can make all the difference. My A level Physics teacher was fantastic, and basically gave myself and a friend the run of the Physics labs whenever we wanted.
  • This highlights an important issue that I have commented on in other threads, sorry for any repetition. There are actually huge numbers of highly skilled and productive individuals either employed or self-employed who are “engineers”. However, Professional Institutions and regulators have mostly adopted an academic perspective to determine who is classified as a “Professional Engineer”.  Although there are international variations, The International Engineering Alliance (Washington Accord) approach is most prevalent. This offers the designation “Engineer” to only the most highly educated, with mathematics in particular, used as the key gateway (or barrier) to access.

     

    Someone might want to pick up a debate about the extent to which Engineers and IT Professionals in practice, use advanced mathematics in their work.  The academic benchmark used for recognition as “Professional Technician” would be considered by “academic equivalence”, at or slightly lower than the admission requirement for a WA style (aka CEng) degree. However,  I would suggest that perhaps only half of practicing Chartered (type) Engineers deploy anything beyond this Technician benchmark in practice?  http://eprints.maynoothuniversity.ie/4766/1/PhD%20THESIS%20-%20VOLUME%201-%20Eileen%20Goold.pdf

     

    Maths is quite a “disciplined” and “step by step ” subject in which it is very easy to lose interest, if you miss out on, or fail to grasp key steps. Add to that a reputation for being the domain of “swots” (“nerds” in more recent parlance) or seeming to be esoteric and irrelevant beyond a basic level, many otherwise bright people inevitably develop a dislike or even phobia around maths study. I’m not seeking to downplay the value of very advanced mathematics in appropriate circumstances, or to discourage the pursuit of excellence in maths by those with an aptitude for it. However, we should at least consider the possibility that academic selection in school is “weeding out” those who potentially could be good engineers . A more vocational approach can lead to equally if not more valuable outcomes, especially for those who prefer to validate their effort with practical rather than theoretical outcomes.

     

    I don’t claim any IT expertise, but perhaps as the different threads of this grew up, some were “industry led” with the mainstream of academic learning provision playing “catch up”?  How relevant is the academic study of “Computer Science” to the “IT Types” that you describe? There does seem to be a high proportion of people who migrated into IT without formal academic preparation, but is this different to the proportion of engineers and technicians? Is there a well-defined separation between Engineering and IT? Are you comparing “Technicians” in IT with Chartered Engineers? Is IT perhaps more “performance orientated” relative to the more traditional engineering disciplines, where some academic snobbery exists?         

     

    To return to the your theme of the education system. In the UK many late career Engineers were selected (or not) by a test taken at the age of 10, into those of “good academic potential” and “the rest”.  Although I didn’t take that test the “Comprehensive School” that I attended was a former “Secondary Modern” (for the rest). The education was actually reasonably OK, with good metalwork and woodwork workshops for the less academic, but the social environment was challenging. For a teenage boy in particular, success within the peer group came from rebellious, disruptive attitudes and behaviours. Thankfully drugs and gangs were slightly less dangerous than has become the case more recently in some more disadvantaged areas. However, I didn’t know anyone who had attended university and was lucky to secure a good apprenticeship at age 16.  I enjoyed aspects of school and learning about anything that captured my interest, but hated being treated as child (once I was physically mature). I was close to the sack in my first year as an Apprentice as College attitudes were a bit too close to school. Luckily my employer recognised potential and with some determination and couple of lucky breaks within 10 years, I was a Head of a Department in a major industrial training establishment (IEng Registered with Management and Teaching qualifications).  

     

    I’m sorry to talk about myself, but I’m trying to answer your question. As a Company Training Manager for many years I have seen many successful career stories, both from those who did well in school and those who only “found their feet” as adults. A significant number of those who followed an apprenticeship type pathway ended up in senior management roles having progressed from Project Engineers (HNC-BSc), a few have done so via CEng, but only from (unfairly in my opinion) a disadvantaged position, unwelcome and perhaps even “stigmatised” by some in the PEI world, because they weren’t a full-time undergraduate student with a highly mathematical focus from the age of 18. By coincidence yesterday a 40 + years old senior managing engineer, described just such a recent experience to me at the hands of another PEI last week.                           

     

    As I see it, all technical work roles require some combination of numeracy, literacy and contextual understanding (including experience or “practical nous”). Most experienced practitioners in a role, have an implicit understanding of approximately how these aspects might present themselves in someone else demonstrating competence or excellence. However, they tend to conflate how the attributes were gained with what they are. This is typified by a “repeat my rites of passage” approach. It may be possible in parts of IT to by-pass established rites of passage and jump straight to the leading edge of practice? If so, I would expect this to involve the risk of being “left behind” as subsequent iterations emerge. Being narrowly focused has benefits but also risks. For example there were thousands of Mining Engineers in the UK 35 years ago. Some moved into IT as that emerged.

     

    I’m going to end on the wider social points. Recent governments of all political persuasions have expressed a desire to improve social mobility. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/social-mobility-commission      

       

    When a generation ago there were generally far more opportunities in many parts of the country for a locally based apprenticeship, employers were used to recruiting teenagers with an element of unfulfilled potential and allowing it to develop. Graduate recruitment was mainly for those of “management potential”, with a some technical specialists where needed. Perhaps typically one graduate for every ten apprentices.

     

    At a national level Armed Forces Technical Training took many young people who could easily have faltered following school and made them skilled professionals.  However, as these options declined , university became the only viable option for many, with those who had not succeeded at school in danger of becoming NEET.

     

    Fortunately university places were made available at modest cost (£1000 PA) with options for anyone of “average academic potential” or above, but that still leaves a lot of 18 year old potential untapped. Many employers of engineers responded by recruiting 21 year old graduates rather than 16-18 year old apprentices. As a recruiter of apprentices at the time the market actually became very “difficult”. Other downsides included the assumption that non-university attenders were of low-intelligence and the passing of “entitled” or “snobbish” attitudes down from when university attendance was more restricted. There was also a developing trend of former Polytechnics to seek academic prestige, sometimes at the expense of their more vocational traditions serving local industries. Some of the trends are described here  https://www.cipd.co.uk/Images/over-qualification-and-skills-mismatch-graduate-labour-market_tcm18-10231.pdf       

     

    We can’t change the past, so what matters for me is where does that leave those at school, university or in early career now. Despite our best intentions to promote STEM, are we actually deterring a significant proportion of those who may be interested in Engineering and Technology, through academically selective messages, especially in respect of higher level mathematics? Are we nurturing those who may have excellent potential to succeed in a craft trade from which a good proportion will always progress in their career to Technician, Engineer and management roles? Could we serve society better by focusing on how engineering can enable social mobility, perhaps by focusing some of our energy on “underachievers”?  Are we offering role models that a young person can relate to?  In university, why are we too often preparing engineering students more optimally for post-graduate study rather than employment? Why do we promote the message that someone who has studied engineering “applications” or “technology” has undertaken an “inferior" form of preparation unsuited to chartered engineer status, which is restricted to the (mathematical) elite?  Are we now imposing a punitive tariff of debt on students of engineering, relative to the earning premium that many might enjoy?  For example some very good MEng graduates can find themselves on the shelf, once the most selective of employers have taken their fill.  

     

    I described earlier the excellent careers enjoyed by former apprentices, who in their generation were often not “stars” in the school system. Even many of those who would not pretend to great academic ability and struggled at school have found their way via trades like Electricians (including IT installers) to enjoy a greater earnings premium than many graduates. 

     

    I would consider myself a friend of academia and enthusiast for education, but I’m frustrated at how the system seems to have become a mechanism for social selection on the basis of an unequal competition. Just a couple of weeks ago someone related to me their distress about a “nervous breakdown” suffered by their 10 year old child resulting from school tests. Engineering and Technology covers a very wide range of activities, which require different types of optimisation and expertise.

     

    We seem to have encouraged the compulsory education system to deter many who might be capable engineers and technicians in order to create a potential academic elite cadre of engineers. Is there a better way forward, without damaging the best of what we have? I have hopes for revitalising apprenticeships, but the government seems to be attracting sustained criticism from many employers. Not another “failed initiative” please!           

     

  • Hi Roy,


    I'd just like to give a slightly different slant on this - in my experience of working with schools (and, indeed, employers) I see two quite different approaches. One is, as you say, that engineering is an academic degree-based discipline. The other is that it is a practically based discipline. Some schools I have been involved with definitely guide their top streams into engineering, whereas - for example - the school my children attended very much had the attitude that if you were academic you went into science, if you weren't you went into engineering.


    Which just goes to show that schools really don't understand the range of engineering careers around. But then neither do many engineers, so it's not surprising!


    One difficulty I see us having is that the membership of PEIs deosn't necessarily give (in fact I believe doesn't give) an accurate perspective on the range of attributes or backgrounds of successful engineers. Those who join PEIs are a self-selecting minority which are likely to have their own biases. To give an idea of the sort of attitude I'm thinking of, there was a furious debate in Mensa a few years ago when members started suggest that the fact that there were far more male than female members "proved" that men had on average higher IQs than women. Completely missing the point that membership was a self selected group of 1.5% of those eligible to join. So all it actually proved was that more men than women were the type of person who joins Mensa.

    So in a sense I'm not worried that the perceived attitude of the CEng approach may put off - in our example - potential IT engineers from joining the profession, my experience is it just puts them off registering for CEng! That said, I do think it is bad thing if CEng / IEng are reflecting a narrow arbitrary standard rather than actual engineering excellence, but that's a different problem.


    However I do see a subtle point in here, given how little schools careers departments know about engineering, they do to some extent rely on input from the PEIs. And if these present a misleading picture of the routes into an engineering career and the potential careers when you get there then that will, to some extent, seep through. So we do have to be careful, and I would be tempted to say that the fact that all the information about CEng / IEng suggests these are graduate only routes (see the many many questions about this on these forums!) gives a misleading impression to school children, Fortunately in all my considerable work in schools I don't think I've ever met a child, and very very few teachers, who've even heard of CEng (let alone IEng) so that's alright ???!!!???


    Cheers,


    Andy