Developing Engineers

A few days ago, I received a job vacancy email from Gradsouthwest (thanks Mayo!). The role was with a company called Engineering Arts, who are based in Cornwall and deal with creating interactive shows with RoboThespian robots. The vacancy reminded me about several issues discussed on this blog about the nature of engineering, and I thought that I might share some of my feelings with our readers.

Firstly, like engineers, artists are also in a profession that is hard to define in terms of recognition. Its easy to say that somebody like Leonardo da Vinci (also an engineer!) is an artist, but what about your four year old niece who finger paints random drawings that no one but her can make sense of? Can she be considered an artist?

In my opinion, they both are artists. And, forgive me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think Leonardo da Vinci or your niece would care about whether or not they were being considered an artist, because to them it’s all about their own work. This brings me to the points made about whether or not the term “Engineer” needs to be protected, or at least differentiated, so that some sort of recognition could be made. To me, the title of “Engineer” can be applied to any human being or creature on the planet that demonstrates the creative spark, the ingenuity, and the motivation to transform the resources around them for some socially beneficial purpose. And since when did engineers become so insecure about themselves that they prefer to be recognized by their titles rather than their work?

Secondly, the recent hikes between courses at university, will add fuel to the fire that the arts and engineering industries don’t mix. For the sake of diversity, it is important to show that engineering is much more than fixing engines, doing calculus, or even using a screwdriver. It is important to develop courses at university that highlight just how important and far-reaching engineering is so that it can attract more students from various backgrounds. This should include its impact on not just the arts industry, but its impact on issues in politics, business, economics, media, and even literature (see here).

According to WhatUni.com, the top three most popular courses last year were Medicine, Business and Education with Engineering coming in 9th, just behind Arts and Design (which came in at 6th). After the increase in fees for STEM based subjects, I believe that gap will increase. The question is are we more concerned about differentiating ourselves from others that we begin to alienate new students, or are we going to work with other courses/industries to provide a clearer and more unified approach to engineering?

P.S. I really hope I get that job because I love robots!!

I recently read an article written by Imran Khan, Director of the Campaign for Science & Engineering in the UK, an organisation whose aims I am in complete support of.  In his article Imran comments on the lack of diversity in science and engineering in the UK.

“Science and engineering have serious institutional problems when it comes to diversity.”

But how much is this caused as Imran suggests, on “serious institutional problems”, and how much is down to a historical legacy of a male-dominated environment and simple demographic realities?  Are there in fact other significant factors to blame for this discrepancy?

Now, whilst I accept that diversity is not necessarily a strong point for our professions, I am always a bit wary of using a few headline statistics to emphasise a problem.

“Disabled people make up 5.9% of the total workforce, but only 3.8% in science, engineering, and technology.”

I definitely won’t claim to be an expert on this (!) but I do wonder whether this accounts for the education and/or training required for typical jobs in these sectors, and those disabilities that effectively prevent people from undergoing those sorts of experiences – I want to make clear that that’s not in any way meant to be a disparaging comment, but it is true that there are certain disabilities which prevent people from having any chance of a higher education, for instance.

“Only one in twenty chemistry lecturers isn’t white.”

Again, a pretty disturbing figure it seems – except that over 90% of the population are in fact white according to the last Census, meaning the discrepancy is actually only a few percent, and it’s not too difficult to find some other reasons why this may be the case.

A major one (and one which arguably may get a lot worse after the Government tripled university tuition fees the other week) is the fact that university applications are skewed towards those from higher income backgrounds.  This adversely affects many minority groups, who are often amongst the poorest in our society.  As the science and engineering sectors are so heavily dependent on university-educated graduates, factors such as this could be more to blame, than “serious institutional problems.”

In short: diversity in science and engineering is a problem that we must continue to tackle.  However, whether it’s an institutional problem, or due to a number of other external factors is certainly up for debate.  I’d be keen to hear if people have any experience of ‘institutional problems’ – more specifically, what can we do about them?

The Browne Review (or Independent Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance) is due to report back next week with constant media speculation that the overarching recommendations will be to raise tuition fees to £7000 a year and allow selective institutions to charge even more for ‘elite’ courses.  This will undoubtedly be welcome news for Dr. Wendy Piatt, Director-General of  the Russell Group of leading research-intensive universities, who have long advocated a competitive market system for tuition fees – but what about everyone else?

The opposite can be said of Aaron Porter, President of the National Union of Students – having campaigned for years against tuition fees, against top-up fees and against a ‘free market’ in HE, even advocating a graduate tax in recent times to increase the contribution graduates make towards their university education.  But so far all of these arguments, that HE gives a ‘free boost’ to the economy, that as a developed nation we are dependent on our ‘knowledge-based’ economy and that HE should be free and open to all, appear to have fallen on deaf ears.

“For every £1m spent by higher education, £1.35m was generated by universities for the economy” – The Impact of Universities on the UK Economy

Adam Tinworth - http://www.flickr.com/photos/adders/3009564837/in/photostream/

Whilst the major partner in the Coalition Government appears opposed to the latter idea, the Liberal Democrats recently voted for a ‘graduate tax campaign’ at their party conference.  This idea is supported by groups such as million+, who historically represent former polytechnics and colleges – but why the difference with the Russell Group?  The obvious (or cynical?) answer to that is simply this: leading research universities will be able to charge the highest rates for the courses they offer, whilst those with a lower international standing will be forced to charge much less to remain competitive, whilst also bearing the burden of funding cuts in HE (see my post on research funding) that will likely result from the Comprehensive Spending Review, which coincidentally reports back later this month.

For those of you from outside the profession, you may think of this as an odd topic for a ‘developing engineer’ to weigh into, but it’s not – organisations such as the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE), along with other professional engineering and science bodies are dependent on a stable flow of qualified graduates from a wide-range of backgrounds.  Major changes to tuition fees and higher education funding will impact their future membership.  Worries such as those highlighted by a study commissioned by the Sutton Trust, that higher fees will deter those from poorer backgrounds, must be shared by all.

“Only if sufficient young people are motivated to pursue careers based on Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) can we maintain and progress the  technological developments that underpin our health, wealth and security.” – Education for Engineering – IMechE Policy Summary

Let’s be clear, whilst the tuition fees debate is sometimes portrayed by the media as an internal dispute between students and universities, it should be of concern to everyone.  A well-funded, stable and open higher education system for anyone with the right abilities is essential for the future prosperity of our economy.  The outcomes of the Browne Review, the Comprehensive Spending Review and the subsequent decisions made by Government will not just affect students, universities and academics – they will affect us all.