Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 32 replies
  • Subscribers 9 subscribers
  • Views 1723 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Alan Turing or Nikola Tesla

Alex Barrett
Just a thought, how might Alan Turing or Nikola Tesla fared in a Professional Review Interview?
  • 0
    Yes, I would agree with much of that but I decided to join in the game and take the 'light hearted' approach. Yes, judging historical figures against the current UKSpec requirements is both difficult and probably unfair as they should, by rights, be judged against the standards of the day. However I would also agree that achieving CEng is possibly more difficult now than it has ever been. I don't have a MEng but only a BEng, though I do have the comfort that having gained it over 30 years ago it does count for the current CEng requirements, but I would go further and say that if the current requirements had been in place 25 years ago when I had my PRI and got CEng it would have been a very different outcome.However I have confidence that if I was going for a PRI today I would have no problem justifying the competencies as they currently are, mainly due to the quarter of a century of extra experience and (CP) development.

    Where the light hearted exercise above does benefit is that in looking at historical figures such as these (Turing, Tesla and Faraday - and possibly adding others such as Brunel) allows us to see if perhaps the Engineering Council have gone too far in some areas.
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Fare enough Alasdair. I too was enjoying the debate, by playing the devil's advocate. 


    However, whilst engaging in these discussions, it has occured to me, out of the blue, that wouldn't it be an irony, if one of Von Braun's (another great engineer), V1 or V2 rockets had dropped onto the house where Alan Turning was staying at, prior to him going to Bletchley Park? That would have been a bull's eye for the Germans; and a tradegy for humanity; that one great engineer had just killed another great scientist/engineer. The repercussion for the future of mankind just doesn't bear thinking about.
  • 0
    I'm not sure how much it actually is harder now - although I certainly think there is a perception that it is. Interesting Mehmood that you pick up up on my musings on this a few years back, which was before I was a PRA - just goes to show the value of PRAs in breaking misconceptions, including our own! The biggest challenge I come across for CEngs today is commonly the "innovation" criteria, but that's because the PEIs and EC have not been very good at all at promoting the "technical accountability for complex systems with significant levels of risk" path (which I must admit I hadn't noticed until Alasdair pointed it out to me, shortly followed by Colin Sellers trying to point it out to all PRIs and PRIs). 


    I think of my dad who got his CEng in the 1940s or '50s based on the equivalent of HNC qualifications from night school, and who certainly wasn't at the forefront of innovation, could he have got it today? Yes, I think he could, given the right advice.


    Thinking about the creative engineer who doesn't necessarily show so many strengths in the management and interpersonal areas, I don't know about the 1940s and before, but certainly when I was vaguely looking at CEng from the late '70s through to the late '90s (when I finally did apply) it seemed fairly clear that applying on that basis was going to be extremely difficult. But if I'd had modern UKSpec and an adviser back in the '80s maybe we could have made a good case - the BIG advantage applicants have now is that the required standards are, I would suggest, vastly clearer than they have ever been.


    Alex: I think you've hit the nail on the head regarding whether someone with difficulty in communication skills could achieve at interview and more generally with registration. Gosh that's a difficult subject. The challenge for the panel is to separate difficulty in communicating from other traits with similar appearances which actually would impact engineering competence: I'm specifically thinking of arrogance, aggressiveness, inability to accept other opinions, which can ultimately end in bad and indeed downright dangerous engineering. And human beings, particularly those who are good at communicating, are often very bad at telling the difference. (For example, anyone who's painfully shy will know how often it gets mistaken for arrogance and disdain.) I'd suggest that the critical point is that candidates who struggle in communicating need support to ensure that from their application it is clear that they must have been able to communicate adequately to achieve the successful engineering outcomes that they have achieved. And where I come across such candidates I always recommend that they try to get interview practice - most of this stuff comes down to skills as learnable (at least at a basic level) as making the perfect soldered joint. I'm sure that many senior members of this institute would declare, after a couple of glasses of port, "if they can't interview well then they shouldn't be calling themselves engineers -  telling people about your work is part of the job". Not quite. You have to be able to communicate bi-directionally with your immediate peers, but sitting in front of a panel of grey men is a whole different ball game. Yes, it's a useful skill, and I'd always encourage it, but for most engineers it's not essential for the day job. 


    I think Tesla would have nailed his interview, but wonder if Turing would have struggled. 


    Brunel, father or son, I reckon would no problem at all applying today! Ditto James Watt. Richard Trevithick though, one of my favourite engineers, I think he might have struggled for numerous reasons. He'd have probably ended up with James Watt on the interview panel and that would have been the end of his application...


    Cheers,


    Andy
  • 0

    ... I would say that it is most unfair to judge the likes of Alan Turing, Nikola Tesla, Michael Faraday, and many more past great scientists/engineers, to today's modern day requirement for CEng registration; just as it would be considered unfair to judge present day members who achieved their CEng registration many years ago to today's standards. 


    The fairest way would be to hypothetically consider whether Alan Turing, would have met the requirement for CEng registration in the 1940s, where the UKSpec (or its equivalent) had been drawn up by peers of his generation? Well, given his enormous achievements in the field of computing, the answer would most definitely be yes. The same criteria should also be applied to greats from their own time period, and not our time period. 


    ...

    The students should never judge their masters. As scientists and engineers we stand on the shoulders of the greats. We wouldn't be here as engineers were it not for the achievements of the likes of Faraday, and other greats.




    I'd still say that if 'we' have stood on the shoulder then we should still be able to make a reasonable stab at an assessment, including using the UK-spec as a guide as it would help others. There are many cases where candidates (CEng) show new and innovative work in areas that are new to their industry, but old hat to others, especially in the older established 'big safety' areas like railways or nuclear or parts of oil and gas, etc. It's about the contribution to 'progress' in engineering.


    These same qualities apply to Heaviside, Maxwell, Tesla, Preece, Flowers, Whittle, Turing, Marconi, Edison, etc, etc. They can slot into, for instance, the academic 'leadership' role, the practical application roles, etc. and all show improvements and and benefits that we would recognise. The hard bit as a PRA is often to get candidates to step out from behind the corporate job CV and simply present themselves as an ENGINEER.


    Always ask "Do you profess to be an Engineer?", and wait, wait, wait, for an answer. I'd expect all those we have mentioned would be able to say "Yes, I've made my contribution, here it is ...."

  • 0
    To go back to the question “would Alan Turing make CEng?”  Firstly we must remember that Turing was not an engineer but a mathematician.  From what I have read (put the film to one side – it was not bad but a bit of a Hollywood mish-mash), he was academically brilliant but not much of a manager.


    Having a guess on how he might perform at interview, A1 and 2 I would say Exceptional.   He was excellent at identifying projects and opportunities so B1 Exceptional, not good at completing them (he left it to others) so B2 “Some Competence”, B3 probably “Full Competence”.


    He was not much good at project management (Some Competence), but was good at getting and spending funds (Competence).  Not a man manager, and tended to upset people, (Some Competence, being generous), probably OK at “continuous improvement” (Competence).


    D skills would not be good although probably “Some Competence”


    E, judged on the standards of the day would be judged as “Competent” except E5 “Ethics” would be “Exceptional”.


    So, overall just about a pass with the exceptionals compensating for the “Some Competence”


    I don’t believe that the EC has gone too far in developing and updating CEng, it has to move with the needs of the profession; and don’t think that we of the older generation would do that badly at interview.  If you are reasonably active and interested, I would suspect that you would do rather better than you think.


    David

  • 0

    Alasdair Anderson:




    Alex Barrett:

    ... I believe my own PRI performance and results reflected this. Sour grapes? A little bit,...




     I was very lucky that my interviewers did their best to put me at ease and succeeded so well that for many years I felt it was the easiest interview I had ever undergone 



    My first PRI went reasonably, a very conversational style with a couple of elderly gentlemen, at the time I knew their names and a little of their background. The second PRI was entirely different. Three present, one of whom I found out later was a trainee, I still don't know which one. They were milling about getting coffee and chatting when I entered. I still have no idea who they were or what their backgrounds were. I'd consider the first PRI well conducted in the main, the second very poorly. I went for CEng and came away with IEng, only thanks to the first PRI. I have discussed this with the Registration team, but my concerns were brushed aside.

  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member

    davidwalker2:

    To go back to the question “would Alan Turing make CEng?”  Firstly we must remember that Turing was not an engineer but a mathematician. 




    Then Chartered Mathematician (CMath) would be the more appropriate award here. The IET could then award him an Hon FIET, for outstanding services to engineering. 

  • 0
    Would he perform any better in a "Chartered Mathematician" PRI? His speciality isn't really the issue.

    On this point I'm minded of "Not Much of an Engineer" by Sir Stanley Hooker, again his talent was more the logical mathematical analysis and modelling of engineering systems such as superchargers and jet engines.
  • 0
    My own particular favourite  http://www.engineering-timelines.com/who/Parker_T/parkerThomas.asp  left school at the age of 10, but sought and soaked up knowledge wherever he could find it.  He was perhaps the antithesis of a person destined to become a member of an “elite London club”, yet his achievements earned him an invitation to three of them, firstly The Institution of Telegraph Engineers and Electricians/IEE, then at the behest of  Lord Kelvin who proposed him, The Institution of Civil Engineers and eventually also The Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Had the Institution of Chemical Engineers existed at the time then they would also have keenly sought him. When he died during the First World War he was quite quickly forgotten by our institution, probably because he was not a militarist, conservative or part of “the establishment”. He had become a relatively wealthy inventor and industrialist who retired to live in the largest house in his home town, now a hotel, but he was by conviction strongly left leaning.  http://www.historywebsite.co.uk/genealogy/Parker/Election.htm


    A common thread runs throughout the history of UK professional recognition for engineers which is that of senior professionals organising into learned societies and honouring others who have illustrated distinction with some form of status. So the number one product benefit currently suggested for becoming a Chartered Engineer is “The status of being part of a technological elite” https://www.engc.org.uk/EngCDocuments/Internet/Website/CEng%20Leaflet.pdf .  The first definition of “elite” that I came across is  “a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society”.  All that has really evolved over 150 years are the mechanisms by which such elite status is afforded.


    Some other professions are “closed” so if you don’t gain admission to a medical degree course you can’t become a Doctor. Some are relatively “open” so if you pass the exams you can become a Chartered Accountant. In certain types of professional career, it is expected that a high proportion of participants will reach a “terminal threshold” at nominal post-graduate level, so such achievement is considered relatively “normal” rather than “elite”.  If we take a long term view, then control over recognition gradually moved from learned societies towards institutions of learning, mostly in practice universities. However a UK compromise has left responsibility shared under Engineering Council governance.


    Advocates of the more “closed” approach might reference the academic consensus of the International Engineering Alliance (Washington Accord) which influenced the adoption of 4 year MEng programmes, with high admission tariffs in maths and science, creating an “elite” pathway for an 18 year old.  So 20+ years ago an intent developed for this to become the main route to “Chartered Engineer”. “The rest” would need an additional MSc to qualify or become a “Chartered Engineering Technologist” instead.  Who knows where that might have taken us , two terminal thresholds , but one more prestigious than the other? That ran into the sand, so at least we have been spared the battles over which type of chartered engineering professional is better, replaced as it has been by; what is the purpose of IEng?


    When university participation was confined to a small proportion of the population (perhaps 2% at my school) then that conveniently defined an elite group. However, I have just reviewed the proposed guidance for Accredited Engineering Degrees in 2020 and it creates no less than five divisions in what might typically be a couple of years of study. In practice this is even worse because the divisions are predicated on fluency in calculus, gained for perhaps as little as a few weeks. Even if these divisions are valid or useful, which they aren’t in my opinion, most people disengage with academia by their early twenties so we need something else. Incidentally “Mature Student” participation is currently falling off a cliff.


    For a more “open” approach, we have UK-SPEC which is mostly applied to experienced practitioners. Some opine that it should only be used in addition to an accredited degree, some instead of.  The IET gives primacy to competence demonstrated and values academic achievement highly, but without making it a pre-requisite. However, this is a relatively recent innovation and a “suitable academic rite of passage” was long required, although it was possible for those aged over 35 to be invited to produce a report in lieu.  Some other institutions still in effect operate that policy.


    So does UK-SPEC achieve our historic mission of dividing “the best from the rest” in the second decade of the 21st century? I would say yes it does and as applied by the IET it also offers “open” access. Could we do better? Yes! Do some people legitimate grounds to feel aggrieved? Yes, firstly because a binary division of engineers, who carry out a vast range of overlapping activities is artificial and ours is based on “learnedness” with a strong academic bias; secondly because to fall on the either side of the division has very different consequences. Failure to become recognised as “one of the best” can for an experienced engineer, be humiliating and even career limiting. Because as currently codified the division falls in the “mainstream” of the profession, it can be debated whether the benefits outweigh the risk of harm for most practising engineers.    

    Is our historic mission appropriate for the 21st Century?  The vision of some who contributed to UK-SPEC was to describe three “different but equally valuable” career pathways suitable for registration. That certainly hasn’t been delivered, perhaps because from a top down perspective the concept of “equality” is threatening.  The registration product is sold through premium dealerships, who mostly have limited or no interest is selling “more basic models” to “lower status” customers.  Some of these lower status customers like affiliating to higher status, or have aspirations to gain it themselves, but most don’t see the value or are even aware, unless they begin to move in circles where registration is prevalent.  


    We have debated endlessly, whether we should market the once popular and useful Incorporated (previously TechEng) model or drop it. Many including myself have sought to highlight the potential benefits, but this has proved a hopeless futile struggle in an environment where it is so widely taken to be an inferior pejorative.  Most of the modest “sales” over recent years have been to a large employer, for the benefit of those employees who’s “status” is already fixed by their role.  Perhaps a good analogy here is the free provision of company cars allocated on the basis of grade. For around 20 years of my career, I had use of a company vehicle, this started with an Orange Transit Van during working hours only, then a gap during which I acquired IEng, then a two-litre Cavalier, then a couple of Mondeos, A Volvo S60, then a BMW 3 Series.  Does this tell you more of less, than using a post-nominal?   


    On the general point of trying to compare the best in different eras, this is difficult because the context is always different, when I played youth football it was in the shadow of Billy Wright  https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-billy-wright-1446877.html   how would he fare in the modern game?  Likewise Arthur Rowley who I saw play https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Rowley . The first politician that I spoke with was Dennis Healey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Healey Perhaps the Second World War did create a “golden generation” because what we have now seem lightweight in comparison (or am I rose tinting?). Fifty and sixty year old music still seems enormously popular even with younger people.  

    Some people have suggested that our current system of engineering regulation is distorted by the age gap between the current cohort of active volunteers with an average age of 60+ and those aspiring to recognition. As I have pointed out in these forums there is also a limited understanding and therefore negative prejudice around apprenticeships. In the older age group there is usually respect, but often an assumption of “craft not brain”(Secondary Modern not Grammar) . Many of the younger cohort have no experience of the pathway, but some have swallowed the academic snobbery and status obsession handed down by a minority of their elders (often not engineers). 


    Alan Turing went to public school and Cambridge University so he was well set in that respect, but was perhaps like many a genius was something of a social misfit and poor “club-man”.  He was deprived of his dignity and persecuted for his sexuality as was common in that era, leading to his untimely death. We should take very great care when we impose negative value judgements on anyone, including as we do rejection and insult.  Our system of regulation isn’t anywhere near  perfect enough to justify insulting and demeaning people as “lower” or “incompetent” which is an underlying cause of why there are so few registered IEng and Technicians. If you are fortunate enough to have been designated one of “the best” then thank your lucky stars, don’t disrespect “the rest” because however good you are, most of them can do some really clever things that you can’t.

        








  • 0
    What a daft question !


    Its a bit like the slavery debate and restitution arguments. Judging the long past historical period with todays standards. Back when Faraday was kicking about and Tesla was inventing things, largely engineering was still pretty mechanical. Electrical and Electronic things were very much blue sky/cutting edge. As such, their towering intellects drove the agenda and framed the profession we are all a part of.


    Now we have UK-Spec, we have many other standards and guides. To assess 19th century individuals in the 21st century is as futile and pointless as trying to blame everyone now for slavery 250 years ago.


    That said, I celebrate these towing figures having named all my cats after them: Faraday, Turing, Maxwell, Tesla, Ada, Whittle & Babbage (over the past 27 years I hasten to add)

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines