I agree, just as a crossword puzzle is futile and pointless, but it doesn't stop me doing them (crosswords, that is). I thought the question gave rise to an interesting discussion and perhaps a similar 'daft' question from time to time wouldn't be a bad idea.

Alasdair

Hi Alex,


I think there's two questions here:

1. Is the process unreasonably looking for those with strong marketing and social skills?

2. Is the process unfairly biased towards those with strong marketing and social skills (irrespective of what UKSpec is trying to look for)?


For question 1 first, my strong opinion is that UKSpec has the level it's looking for just about right. E.g. it is trying to certify engineers who can not just develop technology, but will check they're developing the "right" technology (i.e. what the company / customers needs), and that after they get hit by a bus someone else will be able to carry on that work. I've not seen candidates struggle with demonstrating this aspect provided they agree it's important (i.e. are willing to develop the skills where required) - the actual level of skills considered acceptable is pretty basic.


Question 2 is much harder. Actually I'd argue that any process favours those gifted in marketing and social skills. Even an exam with no human interaction favours those who actively seek out private tuition / advice beforehand. One of my regular points I raise here is the advice to seek out a PRA during registration - those with good social / self marketing skills won't need to be told this, they come and find us (or work it all out for themselves). Those with exceptionally poor skills don't ask for help, and then struggle. This is really tough, particularly in a profession which by its nature attracts people who can be more interested in lumps of stuff than other people. So yes, I think the process (and modern engineering, and indeed life in general) does favour those with good skills in these areas, and that's why I'm a huge believer in helping everyone develop those skills if they want. I actually see UKSpec as positive for this, it's making it clear (or trying to) where the baseline is - e.g. you don't need to be TED Talk level presenter, but if you can just learn how to explain what you're doing, and listen to what other people are doing, then that's pretty good.


I think the key is what people want to do. We know so much more now (e.g. than in Alan Turing's day) in how to help people achieve at least basic functional skills in social areas they are less good at, but if people themselves aren't interested there's not much you can do.

"How many therapists does it take to change a light bulb? Just one, but the light bulb's really got to want to change."


A prime example I was thinking about recently was Bob Widlar. Fantastic and hugely influential engineer. Would I have offered him an honorary doctorate if it was within my gift? Definitely. Fellowship of the IET? Of course. CEng? Err...probably not. Would he have cared? No. Would it have mattered? No. (If I was the safety assessor for a project where BW had done all the design work would I be concerned? Definitely yes. Why? Because we all make mistakes, and not being able to work in a team or let your work be questioned makes it more likely that your mistakes won't get noticed.) 


Finally, the biggest problem I actually see with candidates is the interview. I've seen potentially good candidates who have been referred to me after not showing that they've met UKSpec at interview - when actually it was because their interview technique was bad. I think there is probably more we can do as an institute to support candidates pre-interview, from what I've seen that actual interview process is good (it needs the same sort of skills that you need when, say, presenting a project to a panel of directors), but if candidates aren't used to that type of presentation then this application process needs to be better at identifying that skills gap and developing the skills required - before the extreme embarrassment of an excellent technical candidate being told (in their eyes) "you're not good enough to join our club".


I'll admit a strong personal interest here - when I entered the engineering profession my social and marketing skills were very strongly on the negative side (much more Turing than Tesla!) It's been very interesting learning how to develop these. It does seem that one huge influence is what people accidentally learn from their family as they are growing up - and I think the important thing is "learn". The challenge is unlearning the unhelpful parts!


Cheers,


Andy

Human personality play a large part in career success or failure. Those who feel: confident and self assured; have drive and ambition; believe the glass is always half full, will always win against those with opposite personalities.


So you could get someone with a good degree from a top university, and highly conciensious, may not necessarily rise up the career ladder, and to successful registration, simply because, they lacked confidence. A strong but positive personality; coupled with team building engagement; and a few pints down the pub (or 2 or more) with management and the lads, would be enough to secure job promotion, and ultimately to successful registration.


​​​​​This can be the reason, why young females do not choose STEM subjects, to progress towards an engineering career, because it's seen as an aggressive personality role.

Andy, I was referring to pre GCSE and A level age brackets, rather than as matured adults.


Cheers,


Mehmood