Why are there NEVER any engineering questions on TV quiz shows? I was watching University Challenge the other night and whilst there are geography, music, medical, maths, physics, literature etc etc etc questions, I can't think of a single engineering question I've ever heard. It's no wonder engineering doesn't attract the people it needs to and why my employer is saying he wants to hire people from India and starting his own degree course.

Presumably because few if any of the contestants are engineering students. The questions on University Challenge do seem to mirror the subjects they are studying.

And compared to lots of university courses, Engineering is hard work!

I guess it depend on what you mean by questions on engineering. There are questions about engineers and their work but its not often there are technical questions about an engineering subject.

Engineering has been devalued by a number of things including schools not pushing STEM subjects in favour of humanities and new courses despite that fact that most employers and/or universities would rather see some solid core subjects over most other courses. It might have something to do with the cost of science and tech faculties over standard classrooms.

It also doesn't help the term engineer isn't protected and is being used by pretty much any one and everyone who aren't engineers.

It isn't just University Challenge, there are just never any engineering questions on anything.

And on University Challenge, which came first: the lack of engineering questions or the lack of engineering contestant. BTW - I don't think the questions are decided based upon the students there on the day.

One problem is that in English the word "engineer" is associated with "engine" and to the layman it's pretty simple stuff. In German though an "Ingenieur" is held in much higher esteem and had nothing to do with the "Motor" in a car...that's what I've always thought anyway...(as a Chemical Engineer)

Isn't Engineering the application of the subjects you listed MRS - maths, physics, chemistry, etc. It's such a vast subject that it can be easily broken down into the above.

It's an interesting point, Jimbo, but that's a bit like saying music is the application of physics or literature is the application of grammar.

And what I don't even hear are questions that draw those other subjects into engineering - it tends to be more pure physics, chemistry, maths etc.

Engineering departments are typically huge in universities. But it isn't just University Challenge but nearly all TV quiz shows: there are questions on film, history, music, art but never engineering.

Culturally it begins to explain why engineering doesn't get the kudos it deserves. Which, to Dave's point above, leads the country to equate engineering with technicians.

I don't know how attitudes in today's schools are, but in my (very) old grammar school there was an attitude that somehow it was wrong to apply theoretical knowledge of maths and science to such mundane tasks that could involve getting ones hands dirty.

If you wanted to do that, then the local tech was the place for you.

The emphasis was on getting pupils to Oxford or Cambridge and forget those newfangled redbrick places, to produce a new generation of servants of a no longer existing empire.

It's verging on a separate topic but education of "all" types is worthy of equal respect. Unfortunately there are too many wishing to maintain division.

Tend to agree with DaveG. The meaning of the word engineer has been eroded over the years in the UK. Plumber isn't an engineer, neither is TV/washing machine fixer etc etc. No offence to anyone in the previous jobs, I am sure they are skilled, but they are not engineers.

I have lived and worked in Italy for the past 3 years, and if you are classed as an engineer (you need to have a university degree) you are thought of in a similar fashion as doctors etc.

Just my tuppence worth.

Les

Yes - there's a proper process to become a Chartered Engineer in the U.K. which is harmonised with the EU EurEng designation. This allows you to refer to yourself as Ing in the same way that Dr is used. I haven't bothered though I am a Fellow of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. I tend to refer to the car mechanic type "engineer" as a technician.

For a country that has had some amazing engineers, we aren't good at recognising the profession or the subject.

Maybe it's too easy to be classed as an engineer now? 3 years at uni and you've got a bachelors under your wing and the proud title to go with it.

Most jobs advertised within my company, even those I would class as technician jobs require a degree to even be considered for the position, the filtering is done by computer at application stage so your 30 year experienced guy who carries a wealth of knowledge and who I would consider an engineer is bypassed and your 21 year old with a certificate is employed.

I think to be a true engineer, it's a combination of qualification and experience combined. The university degree should be the start of the process and over time you build up your portfolio, submit your work and then after time be given the title of engineer.

Gone off piste a little here but it's something I often think about when working with young "engineers" who are full of great ideas.

A funny incident happened not so long ago that had me thinking; we were working with a structural repair for an aircraft skin damage, I'd called out the correct material to be used for the repair. The material wasn't available so I was looking for an alternative with similar properties. The young lad walked away and returned 10 minutes later holding a road sign I can only assume he'd removed from a post outside, "this is almost the same thickness, we can use this" he said happily. He'd obviously slept through his materials portion of the course.

To become chartered (i.e. A proper, Engineering Council registered engineer) now, you need at least a masters degree and you need to have demonstrated a load of competences over 4 or 5 years. You then sit a panel interview. The results of all this are then reviewed at a membership panel. I mentor young engineers and the process is pretty rigorous.

The big problem in this country though is that achieving that qualification means almost nothing which makes a mockery of it. You can sign passport applications though....

...and you can add some letters after your name, like BSc CEng FIChemE in my case. But signing passport applications is handy though!

Wow!

Some of us have FCCUK, all after our names.

Always managed to avoid getting chartered though several previous bosses have tried to get me to do it... at three years to retirement it's probably not worth the effort at this stage

So I sit here with a BSc and MSc and forty year's experience in electronic and software engineering.

I'd say the technician can diagnose and repair and fabricate new parts; the engineer can do all that and also design from scratch... with a reasonable expectation of it working

Yes - apart from the BEng (Hons) CEng FIMechE, the mentoring of young engineers to chartership, and the passport thing, there hasn't been a lot of value to me for the £320-odd quid a year.

Ah yes, I forgot the (Hons) bit. But don't you get a monthly magazine with a few good job adverts at the back, and membership of a special interest group, and various meetings to go to if you feel so inclined?

I do - but in a world of LinkedIn, job ads at the back of a printed magazine are somewhat passé. I've been to a couple of seminars but having lived and worked in China, Inverness and Amsterdam over the last 15 years, they haven't been particularly accessible.

I didn't know you were that old

That doesn't mean anything, people can "retire" at 50 or retire at 80...

Yes but Neil is almost 30,000 - and there's no smiley reaction available for that

The value of C.Eng depend upon your industry and type of position. in consultancy C.Eng probably has more value/worth than other fields.

I need to pull my finger out and get my chartership sorted in order to progress - I gone about as far as I can unfortunately.

Agreed, it very much depends, in my 19 years C.Eng wouldn't have made any difference to my prospects and was never brought up. If it had then I would have pursued the path but it was never deemed necessary by anyone else.

Now I'm in teaching I've actually at least got as far as joining the relevant institute (not going C.Eng) purely because it sits better with the institutes that accredit the courses if the lecturers are members. No actual practical reason though.

I unfortunately "need" chartership as its now an expectation for people at me level but in reality makes little to no difference except in my charge out rates...

That and a few of my design engineers have got or are going for it and its not really setting a good example to not to do it for our graduates.

Ironically about the only reason the businesses I've worked for appreciate my CEng is so that I can mentor graduates who want to be able to do CEng at the company they join...

It's not that I'm old... I'm mature. I'm rich in life's experiences. I have a wealth of... ah shit, I'm old.

I was only saying the other day how it's amazing the trust we put in engineers. 10 floors up - "oh look its got a balcony" and you dash out and look over the edge. Humber bridge - drive over without a second thought. Motorway fly overs, no problem. Even the car you're driving has 10,00 moving parts! (unless its a Tesla) So "In God we trust" should really be "In Engineers we trust"

Anyway MRS give us an example of a typical engineering question they might use. In fact give us three see if we can answer them

OK - I'm crap at thinking of quiz questions but here's a starter for 10:

Wear-in behaviour is typically described by what value of beta in a Weibull distribution?

What type of cast iron would be most appropriate in the manufacture of train wheels and why?