Engineering departments must recruit non-STEM students

If, as it must, engineering is to contribute to restoring the planet, it needs to attract holistic-thinking carers, says Tim Ibell 

三月 18, 2024
Two children read books on a bridge, symbolising humanities students becoming engineers
Source: iStock/justocker

Imagine that back in 1750 someone had stipulated that the primary focus of an engineer should be to do less harm to our planet than their predecessors did. Fat chance such a profession would have attracted anyone decent. But that is what we are suggesting today’s engineers should focus on.

There is a growing recognition that the current carbon-intensive approach to engineering projects is just not good enough given the rate of climate change. This approach must change – and quickly. Accordingly, the National Engineering Policy Centre’s Engineers 2030 working group, of which I am a member, is beginning to consult on a new vision and principles for engineers from 2030. You might be surprised by our direction of travel.

Low-carbon designs, and even net-zero designs, are good examples of how to do less harm to our planet. But while both tend to get a big tick for sustainability, they still have an environmental impact. “Regenerative” design, on the other hand, seeks to do positive good for the planet – restoring and enhancing ecosystems – rather than merely less harm. If we are to mitigate the environmental crisis, engineering needs to quickly embrace this approach.

So where do we start? Engineering education at university is always a good place but, in fact, we need to begin before that. I do not mean at school, although, clearly, we need well-educated thinkers coming to university. I mean that we need to rethink the kind of school-leavers we recruit onto engineering degrees. If engineering is to become regenerative, as it must, then it needs to be attracting holistic-thinking carers.

Just imagine how differently our profession would be viewed were it perceived as a caring profession. Doctors and nurses make people better. Engineers need to make the world better. But, for that, they need a wider set of attributes than we currently select for.

Traditionally, engineering has been perceived as a physics-based profession. I am an example of this. I became an engineer because I was good at maths and physics. Most engineers have similar stories. While there will, obviously, always be a place in engineering for the technically minded, there is a compelling need for a broader range of thinkers in our profession. Put simply, and with huge empathy for all technically minded people reading this, engineers in future must, largely, have different attributes from ours.

Needless to say, this is a very hard sell! Many of us tend to believe that our background is the background to being a good engineer, don’t we? But this blinkered attitude is one of the key reasons why our profession is not yet attracting the talent it needs.

Sadly, many secondary schools in the UK do not offer their students the full range of STEM subjects – particularly in areas of social deprivation, where funding and specialist teachers are in shortest supply. Maths and biology are usually offered because the former gets students into a wide range of degrees and professions, while biology ensures that the school’s brightest students have a shot at getting into medical schools. Chemistry is another popular choice, but physics is much lower down the list.

Under current recruitment criteria, this limits the potential pool of engineers and, crucially, it restricts the range of personal backgrounds and attributes that we feed into the engineering profession. Those STEM-focused entry criteria rule out students who prefer other popular A levels, such as psychology, English, sociology and history.

To be clear: maths is a very important tool for engineers. But it is merely one tool. Empathy, worldliness, holistic thinking, creativity and a caring mindset are far more important attributes. Hence, as long as someone is not scared of maths or of other STEM subjects, university engineering departments are brilliantly placed to build up their knowledge and skills in these areas over a period of months. But to inject empathy, worldliness, holistic thinking, creativity and a caring mindset into a STEM-only student might take a lifetime.

Our biggest challenge, then, lies not in the skills we add to our students (often debated), but in our choice of students in the first place. Entry requirements must put far more emphasis on a holistic outlook, a caring mindset and a desire to want to change, and less on an ability to solve differential equations.

Engineering students who can answer a few exam questions perfectly are two-a-penny. Engineering students who can formulate the big-picture questions when confronted with a new brief are very rare. But that is only because most of them have chosen other professions. If both people and planet are to thrive, we need them in engineering. Now.

Tim Ibell is professor and dean of the Faculty of Engineering and Design at the University of Bath. He is also a member of the Engineers 2030 Working Group, whose inaugural consultation event takes place today at the Royal Academy of Engineering.

请先注册再继续

为何要注册?

  • 注册是免费的,而且十分便捷
  • 注册成功后,您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
  • 订阅我们的邮件
注册
Please 登录 or 注册 to read this article.

Reader's comments (5)

Difficult, on the none hand the assumption that because someone is good at maths/physics they lack a "holistic"outlook is seems unfounded. on the on the hand it might be that the personal characteristics that encourages talent in the mathematical sciences is one that eschews the soft thinking of the "holistic" view, and that you can't have your cake and eat it. It is not clear that you can select for students with a "holistic" view. the fact that someone has taken [say] `english, history etc. does not make them a "caring person anymore than taking physics makes them a "non-caring" person Good intentions and wishful thinking does not make an effective strategy
Somewhat insulted by the suggestion that a 'holistic' view represents 'soft' thinking...but I suspect the answer may be in a lot more joint learning. UK engineering education has been particularly insular in its reluctance to consider sharing elements modules with other discplines. I remember talking to an Australian engineering dean whose programme included joint learning between mining engineers and anthropologists so that the concerns of indigenous peoples were better understood and respected in field exploration and drilling. Suited the industry as well because a less confrontational approach actually lowered costs by avoiding litigation, trouble with elected representatives, etc. I know some of the big US schools do a lot more in philosophy and ethics or teach the literary analysis of science fiction as a way to stimulate creativity and encourage engineering students to reflect on possible design futures. Personally, I wouldn't want to sacrifice the maths - quite important that the birdges don't fall down - but a lot more could be done to prepare engineers to work in mulitdiscplinary teams with mutual understanding and respect for each other's skills. Engineers don't have to do it all by themselves - but sneering at 'soft subjects' is not a good place to start collaborations...
One problem you will find is that humanities-oriented people need spare time to develop and maintain their interests and this is scarcely compatible with working all the hours under the sun in a professional role, which is often a requirement in the professions, at least in the UK.
This doesn't really make sense to me. Engineering solutions are driven by a need to solve a problem. If the driving force of the problem iis achieve goal X then that is what will happen. If the driving force of the question is achieve goal X but keep in mind factors Y and Z then the problem is focused on more than just one goal. So you don't need to bring in people with on STEM interest you just need to educate engineering minded people that there is more about solving an engineering question than just getting to the solution. Trying to bring in people with no background or interest in STEM seems like smashing a square peg into a round hole. Instead introduce ethics courses to educate the STEM minded. The article mentions Doctors and medical schools teach ethics to students that are also highly academically oriented in STEM. The article mentions area of deprivation lack teachers in chemistry and physics. But the real issue is teachers are so poorly paid and have so much paperwork that people who could go into areas like chemistry and physics go for other jobs
Some years ago I had the privilege to work with Y3 undergraduates on a group business and design project unit at Bath where a combination of business/management topics were combined with a conceptual product development activity. It was close to the "capstone" unit that features in similar education programmes in North America and the UK (amongst others). During that time, my scholarly research found that some innovative programmes encouraged final-year management students to work with engineering project groups as an internal consultant (and get grades/credits as a result). It was a very refreshing idea which I have not yet had a chance to implement here in the UK. Before my career in academia, I worked in multi-disciplinary project teams in a wide range of engineering companies (aerospace, marine, defence and civil infrastructure). I never worked in a team that only consisted of mechanical engineers. It baffles me why we cannot run problem-based learning units across several engineering programmes. It would provide a much more authentic learning experience to our students.