The perception of engineers
347. Whatever the historical reasons or causation,
engineers in the UK have a lower status than their peers elsewhere
in the world, for example in China, Japan, Germany or France.
This was elegantly brought home to us when we were reminded that:
"If you ask a group of teenagers to name the most famous
engineer in Britain the majority of them will talk about Kevin
Webster who is a car mechanic on Coronation Street".[414]
348. We agree with an unnamed member of the Engineering
and Machinery Alliance who wrote:
In Germany an engineer is a revered person. He can
only be called an engineer providing he/she is suitably university
qualified. In England we have many levels of engineer ranging
from the university graduate to the Corgi gas fitter! We seem
ashamed to refer to trades people and must disguise their trade
with the term engineer. Sadly as a nation we have far too few
qualified trades people whether it be in manufacturing or building
trades. It seems unless you have been to university and have a
degree you are deemed to be a failure, which of course is absolute
nonsense.[415]
349. During our visit to China and Japan, we
were struck by the respect held for British engineers and UK engineering.
The perception of the UK engineering profession as portrayed by
the British media is of systematic budgetary and timetable overruns.
This is far from the truth in other parts of the world, where
British engineers and engineering firms are considered to be amongst
the best in the world. In particular, there are two key strengths
associated with the UK. The first is an outstanding research base,
fuelled by a competitive academia that is keen to engage with
industry. The Japanese were particularly envious of the UK's university-based
research. We were told on our visit that the reason that approximately
80% of R&D takes place in the private sector in Japan, is
that the universities are not trusted as they are in the UK.
350. The second strength is the chartering system
in the UK. Andrew Ramsey, the Chief Executive of Engineering Council
UK explained to us what a chartered engineer is:
"[C]hartered engineer" is a standard applied
by the Engineering Council, it belongs to the Engineering Council,
and that was something the Government established back in 1984,
and we hold the register of all the people who are able to call
themselves chartered engineers. There are something like 180,000
of them, many of them overseas, but the majority in the UK, of
course. In order to be awarded chartered engineer designation
people have to demonstrate they have the competence to practise
as a chartered engineer, and that competence is assessed through
a process which involves looking at their education, their training
and, in particular, the evidence that they are practising at a
level capable of being accepted as a chartered engineer. The way
in which this is done (and this is where the profession works
very well together) is that we, as a relatively small organisation,
review and audit the processes of the 36 institutions that we
recognisein fact there are many more, but there are only
36 that are able to meet the standards requiredand those
people who pass through the process are registered by us as chartered
engineers.[416]
351. The international respect for UK Chartered
Engineers that we noticed was echoed in the evidence we received.
Keith Read, who represented the G15 group of engineering institutions,
confirmed that "the British chartered engineer has a far
higher status internationally than he does at home".[417]
352. Norman Haste, who built the Severn Bridge
and Terminal 5 at Heathrow, gave us one possible explanation,
and solution, for the UK's low perception of its engineers:
We are very bad in this country at celebrating success.
When you say that we are not very good at delivering projects,
I can name a few projects that [
] have been tremendous successes.
[
] I led a team of 600 people; engineers of all disciplines,
planning and designing Terminal 5 for six and a half years, but
unfortunately, instead of celebrating that as an engineering success,
it has become notorious because of British Airways' troubles with
their baggage handlers. That is putting the wrong bias completely.
What I would like to see is a much greater celebration of success
with engineering because we are very good at it.[418]
353. We received several other suggestions to
resolve this issue of perception. The e-consultation for young
engineers highlighted some concern about the salaries of engineers:
The salary is really not equal to the work you put
in during your degree [
]. A pertinent example would be at
my university (Bath). The 55 Civil Engineers in my year, can expect
on average to start on something around £26-30K if they achieve
a 2:1 or 1st [
]. For a BBA (Bachelors of business and administration)
the starting wage for that same 1st or 2:1 student could well
be the same, despite having done a far easier degree both in time-wise
and syllabus wise. In addition after 5 year their projected salary
will be far greater than the equivalent civil engineer [
].
The trend continues throughout the careers, with engineers earning
less. Why should I do engineering if this is the case?[419]
354. The lower salaries of engineers in comparison
with health professionals, lawyers, accountants and bankers is
stark (see Figure 5).Figure
5. New Earnings SurveyComparison of Salaries of Main Professions[420]

355. Another suggestion, apparently from a journalist
covering science for 40 years, focussed on the engineers and their
responsibility to communicate why their profession is so important:
A better solution [
] would be for engineers
to stop whining and to celebrate their subject in public. Point
out to young people the engineers are the ones who will solve
the problems of climate change and energy shortages. Remind them
that engineers created their iPods and the football stadiums they
love to visit. Oh, and add that engineers are pretty well paid,
despite the whingeing letters that occasional sneak into the newspapers.
For that to happen, engineers have to become better
communicators. Don't leave it to the [
] physicists to claim
the glory from the Large Hadron Collider. Learn how to talk to
ordinary people, and not just fellow engineers.
There has been a revolution in science communication
over the past 20 years. Sadly, the engineers have missed the boat,
perhaps because their institutions are too busy competing with
one another when they should be collaborating on this important
aspect of their profession.[421]
356. Another approach explored by a Mr Jennings
in a 10 Downing Street petition, could be to tackle terminology.
We outlined our definition of an engineer in the first chapteran
engineer turns ideas into realitybut we did not delve into
terminology, which is far more complicated. In the UK, for example,
the term 'engineer' is generically used to describe both chartered
engineers and technicians. This is not the case in, say, Germany
or France, where engineers and technicians are distinguished in
everyday language.[422]
Mr Jennings has suggested legal protection should be afforded
to the title 'Engineer':
As a recently qualified Astronautics Engineer and
with 8 years experience as a Robotics Engineer I am at a point
where due to the lack of respect by the Government, the media
in particular the BBC, and society as a whole, I feel there is
little point staying in the UK. Car mechanics, Plumbers and Electricians
are now commonly referred to as Engineers and Banks now regard
Engineers as non/semi skilled. With the UK falling behind most
other countries in training Professional Engineers and the falling
numbers of children undertaking science based subjects this can
only result in a reduction in the UK's competitiveness. I believe
for the long turn prosperity of the UK and to attract students
back to science subjects the Government must act decisively and
introduce laws to protect Engineers such that only "Chartered
Engineers" ImechE, RAeS [Royal Aeronautical Society] can
use the title Engineer. This will give Engineers the same professional
status in our society as doctors, lawyers similar to Europe.[423]
357. The petition received 35,360 signatories,
and great deal of support during our e-consultation exercise with
employers. However, the Government rejected the petition:
The Government looks to the Engineering Council UK
to regulate the professional status of engineers, through its
Royal Charter. It is true that there is nothing to stop anyone
from describing themselves as an "engineer" but only
those individuals who have a current registration on the ECUK
Register of Qualified Engineers and Technicians may use the professional
titles of Chartered Engineer, Incorporated Engineer and Engineering
Technician. It would not be practical or appropriate for the Government
to attempt to introduce new legislation on this matter.[424]
358. While dissatisfied with the current situation,
we find ourselves in agreement with the Government. The catchall
use of 'engineering' is regrettable, but legislating on language
cannot be the answer to raising the status of engineers. Chartered
Engineer, Incorporated Engineer and Engineering Technician are
already protected terms and respected titles, especially internationally.
We suggest
that the engineering institutions, Engineering Council UK and
the Government (see Paragraph 284, Chapter 5) should do a better
job of promoting Chartered Engineer status (CEng), Incorporated
Engineer status (IEng) and Engineering Technician status (EngTech).
In the same way the general public respects academic qualifications
such as PhDs, Masters and Honours Degrees, or professional qualifications
in law and medicine, so should it be possible to inform the public
about the professional status of CEng, IEng and EngTech.
Conclusion
359. When we decided to conduct this inquiry,
the enormous scope and breadth of engineering and the problems
that this might cause were at the forefront of our minds. We attempted
to mitigate against this problem of breadth and scope by identifying
themes and exploring them through case studies. The engineering
profession and Government do not have this luxury: engineers must
continue to be trained in all the necessary disciplines, in appropriate
quantities, while keeping standards consistent and high across
the whole; engineering advice must be sourced from Government
and available from engineers as and when it is needed, no matter
what the subject and sometimes on short timescales; long-term
engineering projects that affect disparate parts of the UK, many
engineering companies and several Government departments must
retain focus while economic and political factors fluctuate around
them. None of these tasks are easy; all are necessary.
360. In the preceding chapters, and to an extent
in this chapter, we have discussed some of the broad issues and
made some specific recommendations. In Chapter 2 we discussed
the complicated interaction between skills training and capacity,
overlapping engineering programmes and supply chain difficulties
in relation to nuclear engineering. We concluded that the Government
would benefit from taking a more strategic approach to its large-scale
engineering programmes. In Chapter 3 we discussed the role Government
plays in innovation and commercialisation and we concluded that
the Government should be more strategic in its approach to supporting
emerging industries. In Chapter 4 we explored the policy implications
of a new engineering discipline, concluding that the views of
the engineering, science and social science communities are all
critical to shaping domestic and international policy and that
Government should consult widely in developing relevant legislative
frameworks. And in Chapter 5 we outlined deficiencies in the Government's
capability to make engineering advice the foundation of many policy
areas. We recommended that Government would benefit from having
more engineers at all levels of the Civil Service and suggested
some structural changes to enhance the cross-departmental organisation
of specialist advice.
361. There is a need for better
trans-departmental management of engineering policy. The Government
should adopt a practice of formulating and following roadmaps
for each major engineering programme, including skills provision
(see Chapter 2) with co-ordination between each of them. The Government
should also be more strategic in its support for emerging industries
and policy areas (see Chapters 3 and 4). Finally, Government would
benefit from having senior officials tasked to oversee engineering
roadmaps and strategic plans, and to manage engineering advice
in a Civil Service with more residual and specialised engineering
expertise. There should be two people responsible for this challenging
body of work: a Government Chief Scientific and Engineering Adviser
and a Government Chief Engineer (see Chapter 5).
362. While we have been critical about the Government's
lack of detailed strategic planning and use of engineering advice,
there are significant positives to take from this inquiry. We
welcome the co-ordinated way in which the engineering community
approached this inquiry (Chapter 1). We have been impressed by
efforts to inspire and train the next generation of engineers,
including the Government's commitment to the STEM agenda (Chapter
6) and to employer-led training (Chapter 2). We have discovered
that our engineering research base is world-class (Chapter 3).
And we welcome the Government Chief Scientific Adviser's ongoing
efforts to improve the recognition of the engineering community
in Government (Chapter 5). But most importantly, we have come
to appreciate the critical contribution that engineering makes
to society, the economy and to solving or mitigating against many
of the world's most daunting challenges. We
are convinced that the considerable strength of the UK's engineering
base makes it both this nation's responsibility and in its economic
interest to play a major part, through our engineering base, in
solving global problems such as climate change, food and water
supply, energy security and economic instability. The recent economic
crisis has presented the Government with a once-in-generation
opportunity to restructure the economy by building on the existing
substantial strengths of UK engineering.
369 The Demand for Science, Technology, Engineering
and Mathematics (STEM) Skills, DIUS, January 2009, p 14-15;
2006 Labour Market Survey of the GB Engineering Sectors, SEMTA Back
370
The first UK young scientists and engineers fair for schools and
colleges Back
371
Ev 124 Back
372
Same as above. Back
373
Ev 159 Back
374
Ev 260 Back
375
Ev 121 Back
376
Q 82 [Ev 9] Back
377
Ev 678 [Professor Caldeira], Ev 666 [RCUK], Ev 690 [IMechE], Ev
663 [NOCS] Back
378
Q 33 [Ev 690] Back
379
Q 6 [Ev 1] Back
380
Q 8 [Ev 1] [Mr Haughton-James] Back
381
Q 59 [Ev 6] Back
382
Q 10 [Ev 2] Back
383
Q 32 [Ev 4] Back
384
Q 35 [Ev 4] Back
385
Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee, Seventh
Report of Session 2007-08, Pre-legislative Scrutiny of the
Draft Apprenticeships Bill , HC 1062-I Back
386
Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee, Re-skilling
for recovery: After Leitch, implementing skills and training policies Back
387
Ev 647 Back
388
Q11 [Ev 509] [Dr French] Back
389
Q 491 [Ev 70] Back
390
Q 489 [Ev 70] Back
391
Ev 593 [CEESI], Ev 564 [Cambridge Integrated Knowledge Centre],
Ev 581 [UKDL KTN] Back
392
The DisplayMasters programme was designed by industry and academia
with the aim of creating a new generation of Display Technologists,
Engineers, Scientists and Managers. DisplayMasters is sponsored
by the EPSRC and run by Dundee University in collaboration with
the Universities of Abertay Dundee, Cambridge, Edinburgh Napier,
Oxford and Nottingham Trent. Back
393
Q 178 [Ev 536] Back
394
Hand, E & Wadman, M (2009) Nature, 457, 942-945 Back
395
Q 180 [Ev 537] Back
396
Q 213 [Ev 546] Back
397
Q 39 [Ev 727] Back
398
www.epsrc.ac.uk/PostgraduateTraining/Centres/EngD/Intro.htm Back
399
Ev 275 Back
400
Ev 97 Back
401
Ev 234 Back
402
Ev 232, 336, 206 Back
403
Ev 204 Back
404
Ev 287 Back
405
Ev 169 Back
406
Ev 268 Back
407
Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) 2004 & HESA 2007 Back
408
Ev 235 Back
409
Summary of 2008 survey findings: engineering and technology
skills and demand in industry, Institute of Engineering and
Technology, p 4 Back
410
Same as above. Back
411
Q 190 [Ev 26] Back
412
Q 221 [Ev 30] Back
413
Q 222 [Ev 30] Back
414
Q 224 [Ev 31] [Ms Langford] Back
415
Ev 196 Back
416
Q 138 [Ev 19] Back
417
Q 214 [Ev 29] Back
418
Q 98 [Ev 11] Back
419
Ev 796 Back
420
Engineering UK 2007, ETB, p 55 Back
421
Ev 797 Back
422
In German, 'ingenieur' means a chartered engineer, and 'techniker'
means a technician; in French, 'ingénieur' means a chartered
engineer and 'dépanneur' means a technician. Back
423
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Engineer-Status Back
424
www.number10.gov.uk/Page14749 Back