Science graduates lack skills - BBC article
Discussion
Interesting article on the BBC website today.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-18957712
I have to agree with many of the comments on the site, It's such a shame how undervalued the sciences are. After gaining my Ph.D. I was well aware how tough it can be for science graduates. I was lucky enough to find a job pretty quickly given the current climate, but I'm still surprised how people in Sales and Marketing departments (for example) can be earning nearly twice my salary.
How on earth can you persuade kids to do the hard thing when there is little or no incentive beyond the passion for your science?
Why, as scientists and engineers, do we not demand more worth in the marketplace? We have the skills that are, apparently, in short supply?!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-18957712
I have to agree with many of the comments on the site, It's such a shame how undervalued the sciences are. After gaining my Ph.D. I was well aware how tough it can be for science graduates. I was lucky enough to find a job pretty quickly given the current climate, but I'm still surprised how people in Sales and Marketing departments (for example) can be earning nearly twice my salary.
How on earth can you persuade kids to do the hard thing when there is little or no incentive beyond the passion for your science?
Why, as scientists and engineers, do we not demand more worth in the marketplace? We have the skills that are, apparently, in short supply?!
Friend of mine has chosen to graduate from oxford a year early on his physics course and become an actuary at a company instead. Not enough money in physics he said. Shame really as he's bloody clever and could have made some good developments, having already designed systems used in nuclear fusion reactors.
I started this thread over in the news, politics and economics section. Some interesting points are made..
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
GJR said:
Interesting article on the BBC website today.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-18957712
I have to agree with many of the comments on the site, It's such a shame how undervalued the sciences are. After gaining my Ph.D. I was well aware how tough it can be for science graduates. I was lucky enough to find a job pretty quickly given the current climate, but I'm still surprised how people in Sales and Marketing departments (for example) can be earning nearly twice my salary.
How on earth can you persuade kids to do the hard thing when there is little or no incentive beyond the passion for your science?
Why, as scientists and engineers, do we not demand more worth in the marketplace? We have the skills that are, apparently, in short supply?!
It's not new. Back in the 80s the average salary for a new biology graduate was £7-7,500. By good fortune my first job (marketing/technical assistant with a large agrochemicals company) paid £8,250 and a company car (!). By contrast a colleague who went on to to study for a PhD at Cambridge was on £5,300.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-18957712
I have to agree with many of the comments on the site, It's such a shame how undervalued the sciences are. After gaining my Ph.D. I was well aware how tough it can be for science graduates. I was lucky enough to find a job pretty quickly given the current climate, but I'm still surprised how people in Sales and Marketing departments (for example) can be earning nearly twice my salary.
How on earth can you persuade kids to do the hard thing when there is little or no incentive beyond the passion for your science?
Why, as scientists and engineers, do we not demand more worth in the marketplace? We have the skills that are, apparently, in short supply?!
At the time it seemed that there were very few jobs in pure science, hence an oversupply situation, and also that many such jobs were short-term contracts rather than proper jobs.
I heard today that a GCSE Biology paper was seen to contain the question: 'Name a characteristic of an eagle' - and then gave four possible answers. It is utterly pathetic. As someone said, a race to the bottom.
Simpo Two said:
It's not new. Back in the 80s the average salary for a new biology graduate was £7-7,500. By good fortune my first job (marketing/technical assistant with a large agrochemicals company) paid £8,250 and a company car (!). By contrast a colleague who went on to to study for a PhD at Cambridge was on £5,300.
At the time it seemed that there were very few jobs in pure science, hence an oversupply situation, and also that many such jobs were short-term contracts rather than proper jobs.
I heard today that a GCSE Biology paper was seen to contain the question: 'Name a characteristic of an eagle' - and then gave four possible answers. It is utterly pathetic. As someone said, a race to the bottom.
It's got twin finsAt the time it seemed that there were very few jobs in pure science, hence an oversupply situation, and also that many such jobs were short-term contracts rather than proper jobs.
I heard today that a GCSE Biology paper was seen to contain the question: 'Name a characteristic of an eagle' - and then gave four possible answers. It is utterly pathetic. As someone said, a race to the bottom.
Two sodding great afterburning turbofans
Can exceed Mach 2.2
An Eagle has never been lost in air to air combat
Do you think I'd get an A++++ with that answer?
And society has changed over the years too. Modern society tends to place a higher value on the showman, the sales person, the bragger, the boaster and the clown.
Those who work away quietly in the corner are not noticed and not rewarded, even if they are doing work which benefits society. Indeed, people like that are almost regarded as if they have some sort of mental ilness.
I find it all very unsettling and sad.
Those who work away quietly in the corner are not noticed and not rewarded, even if they are doing work which benefits society. Indeed, people like that are almost regarded as if they have some sort of mental ilness.
I find it all very unsettling and sad.
Having just obtained a Biology degree from a decent university, I have absolutely no interest in going into a scientific field...primarily because all of the 'science' graduate positions pay a laughably small starting salary and thirty years down the line, you'd be lucky to be earning double what you did to start with.
If anybody thinks that the majority of science graduates will go into a science related field because it's "what they love", then they are sorely mistaken. Of the thirty or so people I know from my course, three have gone into scientific fields. If the pharmaceutical industry really does need "biology graduates with good statistical skills to analyse the effects of new drugs", then they need to consider upping the salaries. Else, we're all going to bugger off to other industries which actually pay well...as appears to be happening at the moment.
Law firm - £39k starting, rising to £60k after two years.
Pharmaceutical firm - £20k starting, rising to sod-all after two years.
No contest.
If anybody thinks that the majority of science graduates will go into a science related field because it's "what they love", then they are sorely mistaken. Of the thirty or so people I know from my course, three have gone into scientific fields. If the pharmaceutical industry really does need "biology graduates with good statistical skills to analyse the effects of new drugs", then they need to consider upping the salaries. Else, we're all going to bugger off to other industries which actually pay well...as appears to be happening at the moment.
Law firm - £39k starting, rising to £60k after two years.
Pharmaceutical firm - £20k starting, rising to sod-all after two years.
No contest.
If you actually read the report, the bulk of it seems to be that we don't have enough STEM graduates and not enough go onto post-graduation education.
Why they've made a headline out of the fact that some don't start university with suitable maths skills seems odd. To me, it looks like the art graduates working in the BBC are just having a dig at science graduates.
Why they've made a headline out of the fact that some don't start university with suitable maths skills seems odd. To me, it looks like the art graduates working in the BBC are just having a dig at science graduates.
alock said:
If you actually read the report, the bulk of it seems to be that we don't have enough STEM graduates and not enough go onto post-graduation education.
Why they've made a headline out of the fact that some don't start university with suitable maths skills seems odd. To me, it looks like the art graduates working in the BBC are just having a dig at science graduates.
Indeed. One of the Lords is quoted by the BBC saying that even A* A Level Maths students at Cambridge apparently need remedial maths teaching. Interestingly, one piece of evidence submitted to the inquiry by a university professor/statistician is that A Level Maths "pays too much attention to Euclid, and to the needs of mathematics as a discipline, and insufficient attention to the application of mathematics as a tool used in studying other subjects.". He went on to add that "the kind of mathematics skills students need to study mathematics at university are distinct from those needed in other subjects."Why they've made a headline out of the fact that some don't start university with suitable maths skills seems odd. To me, it looks like the art graduates working in the BBC are just having a dig at science graduates.
Incidentally the Royal Society did a report on STEM education a couple of years back (also used as evidence in the Lords Inquiry). One of their main findings was that the system of mostly taking 3 subjects at A Level was far too limiting, leading to far fewer candidiates studying more than 1 STEM subject. Whereas the system in Scotland of 5 Highers, with most schools insisting on English and Maths, led to a considerably higher number of candidiates doing multiple sciences and maths - with a corresponding effect on the number of students going on to do science subjects at university.
wiffmaster said:
Having just obtained a Biology degree from a decent university, I have absolutely no interest in going into a scientific field...primarily because all of the 'science' graduate positions pay a laughably small starting salary and thirty years down the line, you'd be lucky to be earning double what you did to start with.
If anybody thinks that the majority of science graduates will go into a science related field because it's "what they love", then they are sorely mistaken. Of the thirty or so people I know from my course, three have gone into scientific fields. If the pharmaceutical industry really does need "biology graduates with good statistical skills to analyse the effects of new drugs", then they need to consider upping the salaries. Else, we're all going to bugger off to other industries which actually pay well...as appears to be happening at the moment.
Law firm - £39k starting, rising to £60k after two years.
Pharmaceutical firm - £20k starting, rising to sod-all after two years.
No contest.
All true but if all you're interested in is money, why did you not go into merchant banking/trading rather than spend four years learning about plants and animals?If anybody thinks that the majority of science graduates will go into a science related field because it's "what they love", then they are sorely mistaken. Of the thirty or so people I know from my course, three have gone into scientific fields. If the pharmaceutical industry really does need "biology graduates with good statistical skills to analyse the effects of new drugs", then they need to consider upping the salaries. Else, we're all going to bugger off to other industries which actually pay well...as appears to be happening at the moment.
Law firm - £39k starting, rising to £60k after two years.
Pharmaceutical firm - £20k starting, rising to sod-all after two years.
No contest.
Simpo Two said:
All true but if all you're interested in is money, why did you not go into merchant banking/trading rather than spend four years learning about plants and animals?
I found the subject itself fascinating, and the skill-set developed within the degree lends itself to a number of non-science related industries. But, I don't fancy spending the rest of my working life in a lab where a supposed 'vocational' element is seen as making-up for low pay. I've chatted with friends who've graduated with Biology/Chemistry/Physics degrees and they feel similarly. Why work as a scientist when we're going to be paid sod-all to begin with, sod-all twenty years down the line and are highly unlikely to ever get any sort of recognition, perks, bonus, etc? Sure, there'll be a few people who love science so much that they will look past all that, but there's certainly not enough of them to sustain the industry long-term and it's certainly not how the majority of science graduates feel.When science related industries complain that they cannot find graduates with the required skill-set, the assumption is that the university isn't preparing them properly. I think the reality is that 90% of people who would have the skills science-based firms are looking for, will never bother applying as their skills can earn far more in another industry.
Look at big pharma - an industry which is on its arse at present. You'd think they'd be pulling out all the stops to attract fresh young talent. Yet log onto the Pfizer/Merck/Roche websites and you get a vague description of what the graduate scheme entails and learn that the salary is 'competitive' (read: crap). Compare that with a law firm or a bank's website and notice that there is a full description of what to expect as a graduate, what to expect going forward and an exact salary stated (which really is 'competitive').
A science degree is great insofar as it ensures that pretty much all industries are open to you at graduate level. It's hardly surprising that science-based firms are not at the top of many science graduate's lists of potential employees.
I'm quite happy working in research at a university, at least for now. The pay is poor compared to what I'd get in industry and very poor compared to what I'd get in the finance sector. Doesn't really matter so much though, I genuinely enjoy my job a great deal and feel that the stuff I'm working on may actually benefit society as a whole.
Up until fairly recently people tended to go to university, and into science particularly, because they found their particular subject interesting. Now there's much more of a consideration of a degree as a career move as opposed to acquiring knowledge. I think it means that industries which require graduates to have done a science degree are going to have to start paying more. People looking at university purely as an effort to financial reward proposition aren't going to do science otherwise.
Up until fairly recently people tended to go to university, and into science particularly, because they found their particular subject interesting. Now there's much more of a consideration of a degree as a career move as opposed to acquiring knowledge. I think it means that industries which require graduates to have done a science degree are going to have to start paying more. People looking at university purely as an effort to financial reward proposition aren't going to do science otherwise.
how on earth does one get on to a University STEM course without at least a full A-Level in maths?
Although I suppose those coming from the other routes (HND is it? I don't know) won't have an A-level per se, but they should have some similar maths level. Besides, on the engineering course I was on they made everyone do mathematics for years one and two. Started at a level nearly everyone was at and then worked up to the scary stuff. Seemed to work just fine. But perhaps that is then a symptom of the problem of people not being good enough at maths at undergrad level... if everyone was good, they wouldn't need to put 2 years worth of lessons aside just to re-teach and teach mathematics to everyone and they could get on with teaching us thermo or turbomachinery or vibration and noise. Not only that they would have more time and student ability to really go deep on these subjects instead of sometimes just treading in the shallow end.
Also... having to give remedial maths lessons to those precious boys and girls with their 4 A*'s at A-level... surely that says it all. A-levels are not hard enough. Round of applause for grade inflation. And how exactly are universities supposed to make their entry requirements for maths harder if the people with the top grade A* can't do the math? short of doing their own entrance exam.
Although I suppose those coming from the other routes (HND is it? I don't know) won't have an A-level per se, but they should have some similar maths level. Besides, on the engineering course I was on they made everyone do mathematics for years one and two. Started at a level nearly everyone was at and then worked up to the scary stuff. Seemed to work just fine. But perhaps that is then a symptom of the problem of people not being good enough at maths at undergrad level... if everyone was good, they wouldn't need to put 2 years worth of lessons aside just to re-teach and teach mathematics to everyone and they could get on with teaching us thermo or turbomachinery or vibration and noise. Not only that they would have more time and student ability to really go deep on these subjects instead of sometimes just treading in the shallow end.
Also... having to give remedial maths lessons to those precious boys and girls with their 4 A*'s at A-level... surely that says it all. A-levels are not hard enough. Round of applause for grade inflation. And how exactly are universities supposed to make their entry requirements for maths harder if the people with the top grade A* can't do the math? short of doing their own entrance exam.
Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Thursday 26th July 16:21
R300will said:
Friend of mine has chosen to graduate from oxford a year early on his physics course and become an actuary at a company instead. Not enough money in physics he said. Shame really as he's bloody clever and could have made some good developments, having already designed systems used in nuclear fusion reactors.
That is a shame.That's another point though, STEM jobs/grad jobs are not the best paid and don't always offer great potential earnings either... although like anything there are exceptions: if you are able to invent and market a new product or technology then great or if you get hired into particular fields like oil and gas the potential is there to earn good money. I guess the potential is there for any STEM graduate, it might just be more difficult to unlock and its seemingly a little easier to try apply for jobs in finance/business where you can still use the mathematics and analysis skills to great effect and take short cut to a good wage at the same time (though I bet its well boring!...thankfully for some the draw of discovering new things out weighs the need to earn money, we'd be no where without these guys).
wiffmaster said:
Having just obtained a Biology degree from a decent university, I have absolutely no interest in going into a scientific field...primarily because all of the 'science' graduate positions pay a laughably small starting salary and thirty years down the line, you'd be lucky to be earning double what you did to start with.
If anybody thinks that the majority of science graduates will go into a science related field because it's "what they love", then they are sorely mistaken. Of the thirty or so people I know from my course, three have gone into scientific fields. If the pharmaceutical industry really does need "biology graduates with good statistical skills to analyse the effects of new drugs", then they need to consider upping the salaries. Else, we're all going to bugger off to other industries which actually pay well...as appears to be happening at the moment.
Law firm - £39k starting, rising to £60k after two years.
Pharmaceutical firm - £20k starting, rising to sod-all after two years.
No contest.
Quite.If anybody thinks that the majority of science graduates will go into a science related field because it's "what they love", then they are sorely mistaken. Of the thirty or so people I know from my course, three have gone into scientific fields. If the pharmaceutical industry really does need "biology graduates with good statistical skills to analyse the effects of new drugs", then they need to consider upping the salaries. Else, we're all going to bugger off to other industries which actually pay well...as appears to be happening at the moment.
Law firm - £39k starting, rising to £60k after two years.
Pharmaceutical firm - £20k starting, rising to sod-all after two years.
No contest.
A friend of mine worked for 2-3 years in engineering after graduating from a pretty good engineering university. She worked very hard delivering her projects but all that time and effort for £21k/yr, tiny pay rises, no overtime etc ? she'd had enough and instead of looking for another engineering job (pretty sure the company she worked for was a bit gash as well like), she jumped ship to finance. Does a similar sort of role (sorta project managing but without the engineering decisions now), few more hours hear and there granted, but taking home a heck of a lot more money for her troubles and a lovely bonus too and gets to live and work in NYC. She won't be coming back to engineering any time soon.
I know the guy below you mentions why would you go into science/engineering if you're mostly interested in the money? (Science isn't all about the money no, there's more than that to it) But you know there needs to be a balance really, you have to live after all and you really can't do much these days without requiring money. Its a big commitment to follow a scientific course all the way through to Doctorate, it would be nice if you were then able to make a good living out of it at the end and not be stuck on a low salary that only creeps up a few % a year until by retirement you're earning just about the same as a grad who's been at a big four accountancy firm for 4-5 years.
I know I got into engineering with the somewhat naive view that it was a difficult subject to master, would require lots of time and effort and is required by people who want to build/design pretty much anything. I therefore thought a good well paid job where after a few years I could begin to live comfortably would be on the cards. My first job, £24k/yr and providing I stayed away from management pathways and stayed in engineering I could look forward to 2-3% payrise a year. That was it. I wouldn't even be on £30k by the time I was 30 and at that point I'd thinking about starting a family. That would be tough I reckon.
Its a decent pay, don't get me wrong, but the future earning just seem to go nowhere and once its been through PAYE and you've paid bills and rent, you aren't left holding too much. Take another chunk out of that for the simple act of getting to work and you're left counting the pennies. I could put up with living like that for a while sure... if I knew better things were coming, but where I was working it seemed that living like that would be the norm. I remember the guy I sat next to in the office quibbling over whether he should take the plunge and buy that 51 plate focus 1.8TDCi he'd been looking at for weeks. I mean the car was a couple of grand tops.... I knew for a fact I didn't want to be in that sort of position by his age! Depressing!
That's what made me get out of there fast. I want to do engineering because I love it, but I also want to do it because I hoped it would allow me to earn a good living too. Its a compromise, I don't want to earn lots and lots in a bank doing a job I will almost certainly find soul crushingly dull, living in a city I detest being over worked and I don't want to do a job where I absolutely love it to death and get paid with pats on the back. I want something in the middle, but in my short experience a lot of places are too close to the latter (only without the love!!!).
Heh makes me feel like a right mug with some of my mates who did 3 years of clowning around to collect their desmond in business management studies earning more than I do after spending 5 years of hard studying to collect a 1st in an MEng degree. Makes you think who the clever ones really are...
Doing a PhD now (ironically earning the same as my last job and can walk to work) and once I'm done I dunno what I'll do! Hoping the PhD opens more doors than it closes! Probably just burrowing my way further into the all work and low pay hole though! Hopefully I can get into oil and gas. We haven't hit peak oil yet and apparently won't for some time, so surely they're gonna need research type bods to come up with new ways of getting at the black stuff.
Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Thursday 26th July 17:21
Right, time to drag the soapbox out though I appear to be in sympathetic company.
22 years ago I graduated with a degree in Aerospace Engineering, I’d always loved aircraft & engineering so there wasn’t much thought of doing anything else.
WRT maths on the degree course, we had a mixed intake with people from Btec courses, industry & A levels etc. The first year which was shared with Production Engineering & Mechanical Engineering was spent getting everyone to the same level & it seemed to work well. I had done A Level Pure & Applied maths so the use of maths in the real world was not such a leap, though I was yet to discover the true horror of advanced dynamics equations. Am I to assume they no longer do Pure & Aplied maths?
The problem appears to be set in the attitude of the populace in the UK and permeates through the education system. A classic example - A colleague of mine was looking around a secondary school prior to their children going there. The group walked passed a workshop with a selection of lathes/milling machines etc. "Great, a proper workshop" he exclaimed. "oh, we don't use that. No need to teach it as no one needs those skills here" replied the teacher. The portrayal of engineering/science by the media does not help either with this perception.
I got recruited to be an industrial STEM ambassador a while ago. It’s hard trying to encourage youngsters into something that as much as you love it, you can’t help feeling your getting them into something that may ultimately hinder them.
Anyway, in 1990 the aircraft industry was starting to contract again in the UK, so I got a job doing the Space bit of Aerospace on the princely sum of £12,000 per annum, which I was well chuffed with. In contrast a very talented friend of mine started at one of the main banks as an accelerated management intake on nearly double that. It should be noted that he was very good at sciences.
Anyhow, going off topic a bit, blunt axe to grind & all that. So, how has it been over 22 years.
The downsides of doing engineering,
You’ll have a bit of spare cash, at least when your single, but you’re never going to be mega rich doing this. I always look at the carpark of a company to get an indication of how they pay. Most of the stuff in our carpark (1000 ish employees, approx 50 % graduates) is at least 5 year old average euro/jap cars. A few flash ones like Porsches, the odd classic or kitcar but no swathes of 12 plate Audis/BMWs/Mercs etc. Having looked at other similar engineering jobs advertised I find that my current employer pays well FOR ENGINEERING.
I built a Westfield 20 years ago & have managed to afford to keep it on the road for at least most of my single years, though only because I do all my own maintenance/repairs. Buying a house & having children has lead to it being layed up for the last 8 years, though I might stick it in for an MOT next month now it’s at the end of a slow 3 year rebuild.
I’m guarded about how I tell people what I do as most don’t appreciate we have a space manufacturing industry here. Two things usually happen ,
1) People think your bullsh*ting them.
2) They look at you as if you have landed from another planet
If I got stopped by the Police in the middle of the night I would say Aerospace engineer if they asked what I do for a job to avoid getting accused of taking the mickey.
I once went to a party in London with the aforementioned friend who worked in the bank. I started chatting to this girl there, I seemed to be doing alright until she asked what I did. I made the mistake of using the Engineer word. Off she ran to find the host to tell her someone had let an engineer in !! Part of me was gutted, the other part in hysterics. Summed up the uk attitude to engineering really.
The upsides
I still get a buzz in the cleanroom as I clamber about the spacecraft. Now & then part of my brain still goes “cool, we’re going to fire this into space”.
It’s been an adventure, I’ve got to work in a few different countries. Lived in Germany for a while (only 2 hours from the ring).
The people you work with tend to be of a similar mind set with similar interests which makes the work environment a bit more pleasurable.
The work is interesting, though I do occasionally have sleepless nights over some engineering problems.
The subject matter is interesting.
Much beer has been drunk (after hours).
Would I recommend my children become engineers ? Yes, but with the caveat “DON’T WORK IN THE UK”.
Do I regret doing engineering ? No, more money would be nice, but I wouldn't have the same varied selection of "war" stories.
22 years ago I graduated with a degree in Aerospace Engineering, I’d always loved aircraft & engineering so there wasn’t much thought of doing anything else.
WRT maths on the degree course, we had a mixed intake with people from Btec courses, industry & A levels etc. The first year which was shared with Production Engineering & Mechanical Engineering was spent getting everyone to the same level & it seemed to work well. I had done A Level Pure & Applied maths so the use of maths in the real world was not such a leap, though I was yet to discover the true horror of advanced dynamics equations. Am I to assume they no longer do Pure & Aplied maths?
The problem appears to be set in the attitude of the populace in the UK and permeates through the education system. A classic example - A colleague of mine was looking around a secondary school prior to their children going there. The group walked passed a workshop with a selection of lathes/milling machines etc. "Great, a proper workshop" he exclaimed. "oh, we don't use that. No need to teach it as no one needs those skills here" replied the teacher. The portrayal of engineering/science by the media does not help either with this perception.
I got recruited to be an industrial STEM ambassador a while ago. It’s hard trying to encourage youngsters into something that as much as you love it, you can’t help feeling your getting them into something that may ultimately hinder them.
Anyway, in 1990 the aircraft industry was starting to contract again in the UK, so I got a job doing the Space bit of Aerospace on the princely sum of £12,000 per annum, which I was well chuffed with. In contrast a very talented friend of mine started at one of the main banks as an accelerated management intake on nearly double that. It should be noted that he was very good at sciences.
Anyhow, going off topic a bit, blunt axe to grind & all that. So, how has it been over 22 years.
The downsides of doing engineering,
You’ll have a bit of spare cash, at least when your single, but you’re never going to be mega rich doing this. I always look at the carpark of a company to get an indication of how they pay. Most of the stuff in our carpark (1000 ish employees, approx 50 % graduates) is at least 5 year old average euro/jap cars. A few flash ones like Porsches, the odd classic or kitcar but no swathes of 12 plate Audis/BMWs/Mercs etc. Having looked at other similar engineering jobs advertised I find that my current employer pays well FOR ENGINEERING.
I built a Westfield 20 years ago & have managed to afford to keep it on the road for at least most of my single years, though only because I do all my own maintenance/repairs. Buying a house & having children has lead to it being layed up for the last 8 years, though I might stick it in for an MOT next month now it’s at the end of a slow 3 year rebuild.
I’m guarded about how I tell people what I do as most don’t appreciate we have a space manufacturing industry here. Two things usually happen ,
1) People think your bullsh*ting them.
2) They look at you as if you have landed from another planet
If I got stopped by the Police in the middle of the night I would say Aerospace engineer if they asked what I do for a job to avoid getting accused of taking the mickey.
I once went to a party in London with the aforementioned friend who worked in the bank. I started chatting to this girl there, I seemed to be doing alright until she asked what I did. I made the mistake of using the Engineer word. Off she ran to find the host to tell her someone had let an engineer in !! Part of me was gutted, the other part in hysterics. Summed up the uk attitude to engineering really.
The upsides
I still get a buzz in the cleanroom as I clamber about the spacecraft. Now & then part of my brain still goes “cool, we’re going to fire this into space”.
It’s been an adventure, I’ve got to work in a few different countries. Lived in Germany for a while (only 2 hours from the ring).
The people you work with tend to be of a similar mind set with similar interests which makes the work environment a bit more pleasurable.
The work is interesting, though I do occasionally have sleepless nights over some engineering problems.
The subject matter is interesting.
Much beer has been drunk (after hours).
Would I recommend my children become engineers ? Yes, but with the caveat “DON’T WORK IN THE UK”.
Do I regret doing engineering ? No, more money would be nice, but I wouldn't have the same varied selection of "war" stories.
my intial thoughts are - why are they talking about science graduates in business? Pretty sure I studied science to do science not business.
also
"immediate action to boost student numbers in science, technology, engineering and maths at undergraduate and postgraduate level."
why would you want to get more people into areas that have very little employment to start with. The goverment should be ploughing money to to jobs before they do anything else.
The other thing is even if undergraduates have A-level maths, when they get to uni not all the top students have any real brains. I've taough a lot of labs in both biological and medical degrees and they are not all as smart as you think.
also
"immediate action to boost student numbers in science, technology, engineering and maths at undergraduate and postgraduate level."
why would you want to get more people into areas that have very little employment to start with. The goverment should be ploughing money to to jobs before they do anything else.
The other thing is even if undergraduates have A-level maths, when they get to uni not all the top students have any real brains. I've taough a lot of labs in both biological and medical degrees and they are not all as smart as you think.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff